Vermont, New Hampshire Lawmakers Feud Over Wilderness Legisltation
MOUNTAINS
The Eagle-Tribune
Bryan McGonigle
Boston University Washington News Service
Sept. 26
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 – Two bills aimed at protecting New Hampshire’s White Mountain National Forest were voted down Monday, with opposition led by a congressman from Vermont.
“We are extremely disappointed, and I think that the supporters of the wilderness designation are devastated by the turn of events,” said Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H. “This got caught up in a very partisan attempt to derail the New Hampshire legislation, which we have worked so long and hard on here in Washington and New Hampshire.”
In March, Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and John Sununu, R-N.H., introduced legislation to protect forests in New Hampshire by designating them as federal wildlife areas, which would prohibit a variety of activities, including road-building, timber harvesting. Subsequently some Vermont forests were added to the bill.
Around that time, Bradley and Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., each introduced similar legislation. Bass’ bill would have created a wilderness area of about 23,700 acres in the Wild River Valley, and Bradley’s would have expanded existing wilderness in the Sandwich Range by 10,800 acres.
Last week the Senate passed its bill unanimously, calling it the New England Wilderness Act.
House leaders attempted to pass its two bills with an expedited procedure that does not allow for amendments, making it easier to pass through with so little time left in this session of Congress, but requires a two-thirds vote rather than a simple majority.
Of 390 votes cast, Bass’s bill got 223 votes and Bradley’s got 220. Neither achieved the 260 votes required to meet the two-thirds standard.
Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., spearheaded opposition to the two House bills, sending a letter to fellow House members Monday urging them to vote no. He said that rather than protect wilderness, the bills would ensure that no wilderness bills would be passed this year because of differences between the House and Senate versions.
“There is simply not enough time left in the session to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills,” Sanders wrote.
Bradley disputed Sanders. “Congressman Sanders can say whatever he wants,” he said. “He’s entitled to his opinion. He’s not entitled to the facts though.”
Sanders, who is running for Senate, blamed the Republican leadership in the House for what he called abuse of power and said he wanted to send a message to Republicans to schedule a vote on the Senate’s bill, which would include Vermont.
“As it stands now, only one bill has passed and that is the bipartisan New England Wilderness Act,” Erin Campbell, Sanders’ communications director, said. “This puts us in the strongest position to attempt to move this legislation forward.”
Campbell said that partisan Republican motivation led to Vermont being left out of Bradley’s and Bass’ bills.
However Bradley accused Democrats of partisanship, saying that when he asked several House Democrats for help passing the bills they refused because they’d already been approached by Sanders.
Campbell said that only legislation including Vermont would get the same bipartisan support as the Senate bill.
“Our bill was being held hostage to a similar effort in Vermont to designate wilderness that did not have the consensus that the New Hampshire legislation had,” Bradley said.
In 2003, Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, expressed his opposition to the creation of more federal wilderness areas in the state, as did the Vermont House of Representatives by a vote of 86 to 56 in 2004 and eight towns in the past four years. That, Bradley said, was why he was opposed to having Vermont included on legislation.
“Mr. Sanders felt that despite all the opposition in Vermont, he was somehow entitled to get his own way,” Bradley said. “The Vermont people need to try to come to a consensus that is not opposed by eight towns, by the governor and by the state House. That’s the issue in Vermont. What I’m focused on is New Hampshire.”
In New Hampshire, Bradley said, many groups – logging companies, environmental groups and local governments – had reached consensus. In a 15-year plan proposed by the U.S. Forest Service, certain areas of the White Mountain National Forest would be protected as wilderness while other parts would be set aside for timber.
“It was a balanced plan, which is why there was so much support for it in New Hampshire,” Bradley said. “Nobody was 100 percent happy, but everybody realized that the plan was a comprehensive approach to the White Mountain National Forest that allowed what we need to happen: continuation of logging jobs, continuation of recreation and continuation of environmental protection.”
Susan Arnold, director of conservation for the Appalachian Mountain Club, said she was excited that the Senate passed its bill and that she was optimistic that a comprehensive New England bill will pass through Congress.
“The bill represents years of work among local residents, the U.S. Forest Service and the congressional delegation of both New Hampshire and Vermont,” Arnold said. “We are grateful to both delegations and their staff for their work in moving this important legislation forward. We’re optimistic that they can get a full New England Wilderness Act passed before Congress goes home at the end of the year.”
