Young's rider language gets the saw

Frontiersman Editorial Board

In what became a heated and emotional battle, both sides in the Tongass timber debate claimed a victory of sorts. Senator Ted Stevens and representative Don Young had added a total of four riders concerning the availability of timber in the Tongass National Forest to the FY2003 Appropriations bill. Three of the four were removed from the bill before it passed. In the end, the three riders were effectively killed by a group of moderate republicans. They were concerned, they said, that the bill, which was already four months overdue, was being further delayed by debate over the essentially unrelated additions. One of the riders, a Stevens initiative that will prevent environmental groups from using the courts to delay resource development, survived the knife.

Last week Young said the whole thing went according to plan. He claimed that the three riders he'd drafted -- the ones that were cut -- were actually a decoy to draw attention away from the milder Stevens language. Environmentalists, on the other hand, celebrated when Young's riders were removed. The Young language was more aggressive. Had his language remained attached to the bill it would have prevented environmental groups from appealing anything in the 1997 management plan for the Tongass National Forest -- not just the wilderness portion. It would also have exempted Alaska from the roadless rule championed by the Clinton administration. A third change seemed like a mild language change, but could have had serious ramifications.

That proposal would have changed language in a 1990 law governing the Tongass. That law said the forest service should "seek to meet the market demand for Tongass timber." Young wanted to removed the words "seek to," and environmental groups feared that would then make it a requirement to meet market demand.

In the end, the strongest language was removed from the bill, and what was left was only a small blow to environmentalists. If it really was Young's intention to trick lawmakers by distracting them, it seems an amazing waste of energy. The Stevens language would likely have survived without a smokescreen, and DC lawmakers are not usually fooled by such obvious political maneuvers.

What is more likely is that Young realized his proposals would face opposition, and he hoped to avoid some of that by attaching it a bill that simply had to be passed.

No such luck.