This is Unreal, what stinking hypocracy


What's good for Daschle . . .



Michelle Malkin

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has seen the light. People — specifically, people who live and vote in his home state of South Dakota — must come before plant life. This sudden insight was illuminated by the glare of 50,000 forest fires, which have burned through nearly 4 million acres across the country so far this summer, threatening residents and firefighters alike.
Mr. Daschle wasn't going to let some ridiculous gubmint regulations get in the way of protecting his vulnerable Black Hills from the flames. So, as The Washington Times reported earlier last week, the Sierra Club-backed Democrat slipped a special exemption from environmental rules into a defense supplemental spending bill. The exemption allows logging in the forests of South Dakota to reduce the fuel supply and snuffs out environmental lawsuits that have obstructed timber projects for the past two decades.
Not a peep has been heard from the green attack dogs at the Sierra Club, but lawmakers in other tinderbox states are rightly voicing their outrage. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, said: "It certainly can only be described as blatant hypocrisy on behalf of the Senate leader to claim on one hand to be the champion of the environment and then on the other hand to cut a special deal for his home state." Republicans in both the House and Senate plan to introduce legislation extending logging and lawsuit exemptions to federal forest lands in every other state at risk of catastrophic wildfire.
That is a good start. But we need to take this bold, new Daschle principle — people before obstructionist environmental rules — much further. What's good for Mr. Daschle and South Dakota must be good not only for the rest of the country, but also for the U.S. military.
As I wrote last week, the House rejected a request by our armed forces to allow the Navy to conduct training exercises at sea without the constant threat of marine mammal "harassment" lawsuits. The military also faces opposition to a broader request to exempt some military training grounds from the Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which currently contains no exemption for national security.
Now, more than ever, preparing our men and women in uniform for combat in the most realistic circumstances possible is imperative. That's hard to do when soldiers must tiptoe around the habitats of endangered desert tortoises, sidestep hundreds of species of plants, and refrain from nighttime exercises, beach exercises, amphibious landings and live-fire training exercises — lest they be sued by the nearest anti-military environmental group.
The Defense Department isn't asking to run roughshod over the environment. It has owned up to past pollution and eco-sins, and invests billions of dollars and thousands of man-hours in environmental protection and mitigation measures. The exemption request is focused narrowly on military readiness. It seeks to preserve training grounds in places such as Fort Bragg, N.C., where the designation of 14 critical habitats has severely limited where recruits can camp, fire weapons and dig.
The story's the same at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, Coronado Naval Amphibious Base and San Clemente Island in California, at Fort Hood, Texas, Fort Polk, La., and at Farallon de Medinilla. The latter is an uninhabited island in the West Pacific that served as a critical firing range for the Navy and Marine Corps until it was shut down this spring by an environmental lawsuit over migratory birds that might be unintentionally harmed during exercises.
The plaintiffs have also targeted Navy bombing exercises at the site. As military experts point out, the Farallon de Medinilla ruling could potentially put at risk a wide range of aviation, telecommunications and live-fire training activities nationwide.
Tom Daschle supports the need to "avoid costly, time-consuming lawsuits" over environmental rules when wildfires threaten the lives of South Dakotans. Why doesn't the Democrat leader do the same for American soldiers and sailors, who deserve the best training possible before being sent to face enemy fire around the world?


Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Good article.

Though I am not sure how I feel on the exemtions for the military training (I'd need to see more specific verbiage) the idea that we must keep ALL logging out is ridiculous.

Quite underhanded fo what Dascle did, if the specifics/intent of this article are true.

The problem is, we always have ALL or NONE reactions. Why can't the politicians realize MODERATION is the key to everything.

The enviro lobby wants no logging, after tortorous battle, we give it to them. Now there is a push to remove logging lawsuits from being able to be levied.

Again, an all or none reaction.

There needs to be a constant form of clearing out forrests in order to make sure there are not huge fire threats and to ensure the health of the trees.

BUT, a fullscale logging program is also not the answer as that doesn't just 'weed' out trees, but can clear out whole sections...

I really hope they think through what their intended goal is, and move with a solution for that goal and not a knee jerk all or none response.

Whats interesting though is that Daschle did this exemption to help out fellow D Johnson who is in a tough fight in South Dak.
The Sierra Club is currently running attack adds against his R opponent, Thume, for advocating this very policy a year ago.

Why is the Sierra club silent with Daschle and Johnson?

This is blatant hypocracy.

2nd, It seems to me that Daschle is admitting this will help prevent BIG fires, and firemans deaths, by allowing logging.

Senators to pursue exemptions for tree thinning
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Republican and Democratic senators yesterday said they will aggressively pursue legislation to allow the thinning of trees in forests threatened by catastrophic wildfires. Top Stories
• Rumsfeld toughens terror fight
• U.S. lets Israelis seek bombers
• Congress sends trade legislation to Bush
• 2 from WorldCom held on fraud
• Police rescue girls, kill kidnapper
• Simon's campaign takes a hit


The measure would allow exemptions from environmental laws and court appeals and is modeled after a spending-bill amendment attached by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle for the Democrat's home state of South Dakota.
Mr. Daschle initially drew the ire of lawmakers when he legislated such exemptions for a 700-acre timber sale in the Black Hills, first reported by The Washington Times.
Westerners in the House and Senate quickly switched tactics and started planning to give similar exemptions to their home states.
"Precedence was established when the majority leader — and we think he did a great job — suggested a way for his forest to be immune from some of the processes that take an inordinate amount of time," said Sen. Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico Republican.
More than a dozen senators attended a Capitol Hill press conference just hours before adjourning for the August recess to argue the urgent need to clear fuel buildup in national forests.
A spokesman for Mr. Daschle said they have not seen the proposed legislation, but warned that any approach to thinning without consensus on the local level would not work.
"As we saw in the South Dakota model, the way to get to a deal that will result in thinning is to use an approach that involves all interested parties and arrive at a negotiated solution that will keep the issue out of the courts," spokesman Jay Carson said.
The Daschle amendment exempts the timber activity from the National Forest Management Act and National Environmental Policy Act. The activity is not subject to notice, comment or appeal requirements under the Appeals Reform Act, or judicial review by any U.S. court.
The Sierra Club and Wilderness Society endorsed the overall plan, which adds more than 3,000 acres to wilderness designations, but opposed the exemptions. The Wilderness Society vowed to fight any further exemptions on Capitol Hill.
"This initiative is something that deserves our attention. It is timely and absolutely needed," said Sen. Ted Stevens, Alaska Republican and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Stevens vowed to fund the measure, which includes additional spending on firefighting.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, said problems leading to this summer's deadly wildfires were not created overnight and tree thinning must begin quickly.
"These projects are too often delayed by lengthy environmental and bureaucratic review, creating even more hazardous overgrowth that, in the end, could pose more danger to the environment than any thinning project ever could," Mrs. Feinstein said.
The measure is sponsored by Sen. Larry E. Craig of Idaho, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, and Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat and chairman of the Senate Resources subcommittee on public lands and forests.
More than 1,800 homes have been destroyed and 15 persons killed as a result of the fires, which have burned more than 4 million acres. That would equal a two-mile-wide strip from Washington to Los Angeles of "burned charred, destroyed" forest land, Mr. Craig said.
Mr. Wyden said he will try to forge a wider consensus among Democrats and Republicans during the August recess.
"It is absolutely critical, on a bipartisan basis [that] we move aggressively with a fuels reduction program to end this devastation we are seeing in the West," Mr. Wyden said.
Congress typically looks at wildfires as a Western issue, but Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Colorado Republican, said "It's a national issue because we are all going to pay for it as taxpayers." The cost of the fires, including damages and firefighting, is likely to top $1 billion.