🚀 go-pugleaf

	    The Headwaters Forest Act:  Chronology and Analysis
		      A Case Study in Forest Activism

     The Headwaters Forest Act, H.R. 2866, introduced by Rep. Dan
Hamburg (D- CA), failed to pass the Senate before the 103rd
Session of Congress adjourned on October 8, 1994, just over one
year after its introduction in the House of Representatives.  The
bill would authorize the U.S. Forest Service to acquire the
largest remaining unprotected redwood forest in the world from
current owner Pacific Lumber/Maxxam for addition to the Six Rivers
National Forest.  There is a slim chance that the bill could come
up during the forthcoming lame duck session of Congress to be
convened November 30 to debate the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT).  Otherwise, the bill must be reintroduced next
year in the House and Senate to begin again the long march toward
passage.

     Efforts to protect the Headwaters redwood forest complex in
Humboldt County, California, span the past decade.  These efforts
have included numerous lawsuits against Pacific Lumber/Maxxam, the
State of California and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; a
failed state-wide ballot initiative in 1990; a year of organized
protests called "Redwood Summer" that witnessed the car-bombing of
two leading activists; an ambitious public education campaign
connecting "junk bond" financed corporate raiding and the savings
and loan debacle of the late 1980's with the accelerated and
illegal liquidation of ancient redwood forests; and, most
recently, the combined Washington, D.C. lobbying efforts of a
grassroots and national environmental coalition.  At the time of
Maxxam's purchase of Pacific Lumber (PALCO) in 1986, PALCO owned
196,000 acres of redwood forest land.  Presently, only about 5,500
acres of virgin old growth remain.

House Committee Action Sets the Stage
     Hearings for the bill were held in the authorizing committees
of the House in mid-October, 1993.  Testimony by California
fisheries biologist Peter Moyle firmly established the importance
of protecting the watersheds of the Headwaters complex to the
survival of the coho salmon.  PALCO CEO John Campbell testified
that PALCO would sell the 4,488 acres of the Headwaters grove, but
not the total parcel of 44,000 acres designated in the bill.  The
U.S. Forest Service testified to its support of the bill, however,
the agency's appraisal cited for the lands to be acquired under
the bill was an astounding $1.5 billion dollars.

     The issues of cost and acreage would be paramount in the
subcommittee and full committee mark-up of the bill.  In
particular, two Republican Members of the California delegation
and authorizing committee members, Reps. John Doolittle and
Richard Pombo, would make repeated attempts to attach to the bill
Endangered Species Act (ESA) related "takings" amendments and
amendments limiting the acreage of the acquisition.

     H.R. 2866 was reported out of the Specialty Crops and Natural
Resources Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee on
November 22, 1993.  During the mark-up, Rep. Doolittle offered an
amendment that would have limited the acquisition to the
Headwaters grove alone and would have limited the means of
procurement to purchase from appropriated funds, eliminating a
land swap as a means of acquiring the lands.  The amendment was
defeated.

     Rep. Pombo offered an amendment that mandated that the bill
acquire lands from a willing seller, which was accepted without
opposition.  The amendment eliminated the possibility of
condemning the lands as a means of acquisition.  According to
staff for Rep. Hamburg, the use of condemnation was not considered
a possibility, despite the implications of pending litigation tied
to the endangered marbled murrelet and coho salmon and PALCO's
disregard of the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding these species.  The amendment accepted, the bill was
reported out of subcommittee with Rep. Gary Condit (D-CA) breaking
ranks with his party to vote against passage.

August 4, 1993 -- Headwaters Forest Act, H.R. 2866 introduced in
the House by Rep. Dan Hamburg and Rep. Pete Stark

October 12-13, 1993 -- Hearings held for H.R. 2866 in House
authorizing subcommittees.

November 22, 1993 -- H.R. 2866 reported out of the Specialty Crops
and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the House Agriculture
Committee.

March 24, 1994 -- H.R. 2866 reported out of the National Parks,
Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee of the House Natural
Resources Committee.

May 11, 1994 -- H.R. 2866 reported out of the  House Natural
Resources Committee.

July 13, 1994 -- H.R. 2866 reported out of the  House Agriculture
Committee with Volkmer-Dooley en bloc amendments.

July 15, 1994 -- Headwaters Forest Act introduced in the Senate by
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) as S.  2285.

August 15, 1994 -- Pacific Lumber (PALCO) issues press release
supporting Headwaters Forest Act.

August 16, 1994 -- H.R. 2866 withdrawn from consideration for
passage under suspension.

September 21, 1994 -- H.R. 2866 debated on the Floor of the House
and passed 288-133.

October 8, 1994 -- The 103rd Session of Congress adjourns.  S.
2285 dies without being considered by the Senate.

     H.R. 2866 was reported out of the National Parks, Forests and
Public Lands Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee
on March 24, 1994.  In contrast to the version of the bill that
was reported out of the Agriculture Subcommittee, the version
reported to the full Natural Resources Committee did not carry an
amendment that would mandate acquisition of the designated lands
from a willing seller.

     Subcommittee Chairman Bruce Vento (D-MN) offered amendments
that allowed for non-cash acquisition of the lands and clarified
the authority of agencies regarding management plans for the
acquired lands.  Rep. Doolittle offered a "willing seller"
amendment similar to the amendment offered in the Agriculture
subcommittee thereby denying the U.S. Forest Service the power of
eminent domain.

     Rep. Pat Williams (D-MT) spoke of his opposition to the
amendment.  He cited westerners' "allergy to eminent domain," but
he also cited information compiled by his staff that showed that
the percentage of cases in which the U.S.  Forest Service had
acquired lands using eminent domain amounted to less than five
percent.  He said it was "best to allow the Forest Service to have
[eminent domain] authority because they seldom use it."   The
Doolittle amendment was defeated, with voting on both the
amendment and the bill following party lines.

Republican Amendment Efforts Dog Full Committees
     H.R. 2866 was reported out of the House Natural Resources
Committee on Wednesday, May 11 on a voice vote, with no
deleterious amendments or changes to the bill.  The Committee
dealt with a total of four proposed amendments to the bill.  An
amendment introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Vento authorizing
the exchange of surplus federal lands to acquire the Headwaters
Forest passed.  An amendment was offered by Rep. Calvin Dooley
(D-CA) which would have limited the acreage of the bill to
approximately 7,000 acres from the proposed 44,000 acres.  Dooley
argued that limiting the acreage would improve the likelihood of
acquiring the "significant" old growth trees.  The Dooley
amendment was narrowly defeated 22-19 in a roll call vote.
Breaking ranks with their party, Reps. Richard Lehman (D-CA) and
Larry LaRocco (D-ID) supported the amendment.

     Rep. Pombo offered a third amendment, which would have
exempted the appraisal of the lands to be acquired by the bill
from being influenced by the presence of endangered species, as
required by the ESA.  Vento pointed out that to appraise the land
without regard to endangered species was to "ignore the facts."
The specter of the much larger "takings" issue hovered in the
room, until exorcised by Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA),
who stated that the issue was larger than the bill before the
Committee.  The Pombo amendment was defeated on a voice vote.

     Rep. Doolittle introduced a final amendment which would have
articulated PALCO's entitlement to "full use and enjoyment" of
their property until the lands are acquired.  Vento said that such
a provision is implied and that an amendment was not necessary.
Doolittle consented and withdrew the amendment.

     On July 13, H.R. 2866 was reported out of the House
Agriculture Committee to the House Floor with the addition of en
bloc amendments offered by Reps.  Harold Volkmer (D-MO) and
Dooley.  The en bloc amendments placed a limit of ten years on the
period within which the federal government may acquire the tract;
stipulated that the U.S. Forest Service may draft management plans
only for lands that had been acquired; and stipulated that the
lands may be acquired by means other than purchase.  This last
amendment was similar to the amendment passed in the Natural
Resources committee.

     Rep. Doolittle introduced an amendment mandating that the
bill have "no adverse effect on lands until acquired" which was
passed by unanimous consent.  Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) voiced
concern that the amendment did not clarify that the owner was
entitled to "lawful" use of property and requested report language
stating that "lawful" use was intended.  Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA)
asked if this amendment would preclude the California Department
of Forestry from denying permits for logging or if it gave PALCO
more authority to get a Timber Harvest Plan (THP).  Rep. Volkmer
said this could be clarified in report language.  The bill was
reported out on a voice vote.

Activists Move Bill to the House Floor
     Although the ramifications of the Agriculture Committee
amendments were unclear at first and caused some consternation
among grassroots activists involved in THP appeals, passage out of
the Agriculture Committee was a clear victory for Rep. Hamburg.
The acreage of the original proposal remained intact, which
preserved the intent of the bill to protect the Headwaters Forest
ecosystem and watersheds.

     For two weeks in early August, northern California activists
Kathy Bailey of the Sierra Club of Northern California, Josh
Kaufman of Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), and
Dr. Ken Miller and Karin Rosman, both of the Bay Area Headwaters
Coalition, travelled to Washington, D.C. to work with Rep.
Hamburg's office, WAFC staff and interns from national
environmental groups to gauge and build support for the bill.
These activists met with over seventy-five Congressional offices
to determine if the Headwaters bill would have enough support to
be given a vote on the House Floor.  An effort to pass the bill on
suspension was thwarted by the prospect of not having enough
supporting votes and was abandoned on August 16.  California
activists were aided in their lobbying efforts by Mac Blewer of
the Endangered Species Coalition, Brian O'Donnell, Sierra Club and
Peter Hess, National Wildlife Federation.

     In addition to the deliberate and strategic efforts of the
Californians to line up support for the bill, letters of
endorsement were solicited from national groups.  Supporting
national organizations included the League of Conservation Voters,
National Wildlife Federation, Save America's Forests, World
Wildlife Fund, Trout Unlimited, Sierra Club, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Greenpeace, The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club
Legal Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, Environmental
Defense Fund and the Ancient Forest Alliance.

     Perhaps the most significant development for the House
lobbying effort, however, was the distribution on Capitol Hill of
the press release issued by PALCO on August 15 endorsing the bill.
The release stated that "H.R. 2866 (as modified by the House
Committee on Agriculture) now contains significant amendments that
fully protect the company's rights as a private property owner."
Activists could now lobby for a bill that enjoyed the support of
the owner, and their successful march through the ranks of likely
Congressional supporters assured Hamburg's office that the bill
could withstand debate and a vote on the House Floor.

     Equally significant to passage was the rule given the bill by
the House Rules Committee.  On Tuesday, September 20, the House
Rules Committee met to determine the rule for voting on the bill
on the House Floor.  Under pressure from Speaker of the House Tom
Foley (D-WA) to support Rep. Hamburg, and despite the objections
of all four Republican Rules Committee members, the Committee
assigned a "modified closed rule" to H.R. 2866 which allowed for
three Democratic amendments and six Republican amendments to be
considered.  Five amendments were disallowed on roll call votes in
the Rules Committee, each by a 4-5 vote, with four Members not
voting.  An amendment offered by Rep. Doolittle to limit the
acreage was disallowed and three amendments offered by Rep. Pombo
were disallowed, including the appraisal without regard to
endangered species.  Pombo also offered an amendment that would
have offered the Agriculture Committee version of the bill as a
substitute and an amendment to sunset the acquisition within five
years.  An amendment for a ten-year sunset period had already been
accepted.  Also defeated was an amendment offered by Rep. Tom
Lewis (R-FL) which would have prohibited acquisition through the
exchange of Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) properties or a
Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation (FDIC) debt swap.

Debate Coup and Lop-sided Vote Reward Supporters
     A favorable rule in hand, the bill moved to the House Floor
     on September 21.  The rhetoric of the Floor debate touched on
many of the environmental issues that dogged the 103rd Congress.
Republican Members of Congress used the debate to call for
modifying the ESA and protecting private property rights, accusing
their Democratic colleagues and the administration of another
example of waging a "war on the West."  Grousing over the
restrictive rule assigned the bill came from both sides of the
aisle, though most notably from Republicans David Drier (CA) and
Pombo, who tirelessly and vainly pushed his ESA-related amendment
though it had been consistently defeated in the markup of the
bill.

     In a surprise coup for environmentalists, Rep. Billy Tauzin
(D-LA), who  won an amendment to the California Desert Protection
Act limiting the impact of endangered species in appraising lands
to be acquired, came out in strong opposition to the Pombo
amendment in the debate over the rule.  Tauzin explained that in
the case of the Headwaters bill, the willing seller/willing buyer
provisions did not require the protection of property rights by a
"Tauzin-style" ESA amendment as offered by Pombo.  Pombo's
months-long effort to add a "Tauzin amendment" to the Headwaters
bill was finally at a dead end.  The House accepted the rule
245-175.

     An amendment sponsored by Rep. Doolittle to cap the spending
on the Headwaters acquisition at $200 million passed 240-188.
Rep. Pombo offered an amendment that would have eliminated from
the bill the 13,260 acre study area significant to the recovery of
the coho salmon.  The Pombo amendment was defeated 170-253.  Rep.
Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) succeeded in adding an amendment to the
bill as part of the en bloc amendments that recognizes the
fragmentation and irreplaceable loss of ecosystems and calls for
creative solutions for permanent protection.  The bill was then
voted on and passed by a vote of 288- 133, a margin much greater
than anticipated by the grassroots lobbyists or Hamburg's staff.

White Hats, Black Hats
     Throughout the committee markup process and through the
debate on the Floor, House leadership and certain members of the
California delegation proved themselves to be supporters of their
colleague Rep. Hamburg and his bill.  "White hats" included
Agriculture Chairman de la Garza, Natural Resources Chairman
Miller, and Subcommittee Chairs Vento and Rose.  Staff for House
Speaker Tom Foley intimated that they had weighed in behind the
scenes for the favorable rule in the Rules Committee.  Reps.
Bonior, Abercrombie, Farr, Furse, Hinchey, Woolsey, Kopetski,
Brown (CA), Fazio, Hall, Stark, Volkmer, Ravenel, Pelosi, and
Mineta spoke passionately in support of the bill on the Floor.
Rep. Dooley, who in committee had offered an amendment limiting
the acreage, provided strong support.  Rep. Condit, who opposed
the bill in committee, voted for the bill on the Floor.

     Rep. Pombo, the youngest Republican in the House, cut his
teeth on the Headwaters bill as the new lapdog of
anti-environmental interests in Congress.  Reactionary stalwart
John Doolittle used the bill to stump for private property rights.
Other "black hats" included Reps. Dreier, Lewis (R-FL), Hansen
(R-UT), Herger (R-CA), Goodlatte (R-VA), and Roberts (R-KS), who
spoke in opposition to the bill.  California Delegation Members
voting against the bill were Ric Lehman (D) and Republican Reps.
Baker, Calvert, Cox, Cunningham, Dornan, Gallegly, Huffington,
Hunter, Kim, Lewis, McCandless, McKeon, Moorhead, Packard,
Rohrabacher, Royce, and Thomas.

Senate Proves Intractable Despite Covert Lobbying
     California activists returned to the Hill for another
lobbying tour just one week after H.R. 2866 passed the House.
Kathy Bailey, Darryl Cherney of Earth First!, Cecelia Lanman of
EPIC and her daughter Mariah were aided by WAFC and the following
individuals and organizations: Carl Ross, Save America's Forests;
Ned Daly, Center for the Study of Responsive Law; Brock Evans and
Dave Yeh, National Audubon Society; and Mac Blewer, Endangered
Species Coalition.  Additional strategic thinking was provided by
Tim Mahoney, League of Conservation Voters; Brent Blackwelder,
Friends of the Earth; and Perry Plumart, aide to Rep. Pete Stark.

     The Californians were charged with a sensitive mission.  At
such a late hour, and without the bill being given a hearing in
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the only way for it to
pass the Senate was by unanimous consent, which requires the
support of the full authorizing committee.  This was unlikely for
one reason:  Ranking Minority Committee Member Sen. Malcolm Wallop
of Wyoming.  Sen. Wallop was almost certain to oppose the
Headwaters bill.  Activists were challenged, therefore, to quietly
line up Democratic support.  Maxxam's lobbyists were challenged
with lining up Republican support, including Sen. Wallop.
Activists were required to proceed quietly because in the heated
partisan atmosphere too much attention brought to a
Democrat-sponsored unanimous consent bill was as likely to line up
Republican opposition as it was to line up Democratic support.

     Interesting aspects of this covert operation included the
     following:

     Activists meeting over lunch in the Senate cafeteria had
     their lobbying skills tested when Energy and Natural
     Resources Committee Member Sen. Dale
     Bumpers (D-AR) occupied the adjoining table.  Lanman,
     refusing the buffet, effectively stalked Sen. Bumpers after
     he finished his meal, whipped out her color photos of the
     Headwaters area and politely lobbied the powerful Senator.

     A Senate committee staffer consumed by the Desert Bill was
     stalked and ambushed in his office by the full complement of
     activists.  Visibly disturbed, he told the activists that
     chances of a "$200 million bill" passing were nil without the
     support of Wallop and the Appropriations Committee.
     Ironically, all efforts to allay concerns about the potential
     costs of the bill were lost to the spending cap  amended to
     the bill.  There was not an opportunity to explain options
     for acquisition.

     Cherney, frustrated at what he perceived to be Sen. Boxer's
     passive opposition to the bill, laughingly threatened Boxer's
     staff with activists in "bear and bunny suits" working the
     halls of the Senate office buildings.  Throughout the tense,
     final days, activists joked that it was time to don the "bear
     and bunny suits."  Ironicallly, activists who had in the past
     made theater of the vilification of Maxxam CEO Charles
     Hurwitz found themselves quietly working in concert with
     Maxxam lobbyists to pass the bill.

     The California activists were called on the carpet by Sen.
     Boxer's staff in San Francisco for button-holing Sen. Boxer
     and swarming Boxer's aide outside the Senate Office Building
     in their frustration over not obtaining personal meetings
     with either Senator.

     Once activists had met with all the friendly Democrats and
     stalked the balance of the committee staff, there was little
more they could do in the halls of the Senate.  Activists' efforts
reached the point of diminishing returns when it became apparent
that they knew far more about the remaining opportunities for
passage of the bill than did the Senate staff with whom they  met.
Phone banking by Sierra Club chapters and Headwaters activists
throughout California produced phone calls to the California
Senate Delegation, but it was not enough to prod the Senate into
action.  The four California activists witnessed the quiet death
of the bill from the Senate gallery when the Session adjourned
late in the evening on Saturday, October 8.

Republican Obstructionism
     Although California activists were aided by an aggressive
campaign by LightHawk to get Senators and their staff in the air
over the Headwaters grove during the late August recess, it was
clear that efforts to educate the Senate had fallen victim to a
"Catch-22" during which the time needed to educate the Senate
passed.  Efforts to educate the Senate would have been most
effective if they had been contemporaneous with House efforts.
However, education in the Senate could not proceed effectively
until the bill was introduced in the Senate.  The California
Senate delegation, already stretched over the Desert Bill, would
not introduce the bill until it was likely to pass the House.
Once the bill did pass the House, activists were left with less
than a month to move the bill through the Senate.

     Given the sophistication and effectiveness of the California
activists and the ultimately non-controversial nature of the
legislation, the Headwaters bill may have stood an outside chance
of being sent to the President's desk by unanimous consent even
with so little time and such a dim understanding of the bill in
the Senate.  What no one could have foreseen, or done anything to
change, though, was the intractable partisan politics and
Republican obstructionism that came to a head in the final days of
the 103rd Congress.  Sen. Boxer's staffer reminded activists of
the fact that there was not a single piece of legislation of their
own that Republicans wanted passed, therefore there was nothing
Democrats could use for bargaining purposes.

Challenges for the 104th Congress
     Passage of the Headwaters bill in the next Congress will
depend heavily on the re-election of Rep. Dan Hamburg, who
throughout the passage of the bill from one Congressional body to
the other was locked in a tight race with Republican Frank Riggs
who he unseated two years ago.  Hamburg, cast as "New Age" by his
opponent, proved he could move legislation through Congress in no
uncertain terms.  Hamburg employed the traditional means to
achieve his Headwaters victory:  tirelessly working for the bill,
enlisting the support of House leadership, accepting compromise,
and providing assurances to Maxxam, which bought the industry into
the bill, all without compromising the ecosystem management
emphasis of the bill.  The Headwaters bill should clearly
demonstrate Hamburg's ability to push well- crafted legislation
through Congress to his constituents in northern California's
First Congressional District.

     Headwaters activists are also challenged to build a larger
constituency for Headwaters.  The California Senate delegation,
already consumed with the Desert Bill, may have felt more
empowered to move the Headwaters bill if support could have been
demonstrated from constituencies outside of the northern
California environmental community.  The Headwaters Forest is a
national treasure and efforts to nationalize the campaign must
amplify efforts such as Doug and Lucy Thron's very successful
national slide show tour.

     Cosponsorship of the Headwaters bill and the House vote were
both environmental litmus tests for Members of Congress.
Cosponsorship of the bill was one of twenty-six criteria used to
determine the 1994 Congressional Scorecard of the League of
Conservation Voters for the Second Session of the 103rd Congress.

     The bill had the support of PALCO, the U.S. Forest Service
and the Clinton administration, the Governor of California, the
Democratic National Committee, House leadership, 288 Members of
the House of Representatives including 30 Members of the
California delegation and 46 Republicans, an uncounted number of
Senators including leadership, and most major national
environmental groups.  The bill was opposed by four out of five
Humboldt County supervisors, 22 Republican Members of the
California Congressional delegation, and Sen. Malcolm Wallop.
Sen. Wallop is retiring, and although Senate and House leadership
may shift to the Republicans, much of the Congressional support
identified by grassroots lobbyists will remain in Congress.

Debt for Nature Update "The fate of the largest unprotected
redwood forest in the world may now rest in the hands of an
unlikely savior, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC)," writes Ned Daly in "Ravaging the Redwoods:  Charles
Hurwitz, Michael Milken and the Cost of Greed," in the September
1994 issue of Multinational Monitor.

     Jill Ratner, a lawyer for the Rose Foundation in Oakland, CA,
     writes:

     Now that the Senate recessed without passing the Headwaters
     Forest Act, it appears that over the next few
months our best chance to protect the forest may be to focus on
the FDIC and the potential for a debt-for-nature swap.  The
September 26 memo [prepared by the Rose Foundation for the FDIC]
was designed to encourage the FDIC to aggressively explore all
possible strategies for recovering Headwaters Forest and Pacific
Lumber's other assets in connection with the ongoing FDIC
investigation into the failure of the Maxxam-controlled United
Savings Association of Texas (USAT).  It was also intended to
encourage the FDIC to consider ... seeking interim protection of
the forest during litigation.

     After preparing the memo, I was even more convinced that
there is a very strong legal case for the FDIC to seek Maxxam's
disgorgement of Pacific Lumber as a remedy for the FDIC's loss in
the USAT bailout.  The constructive trust/disgorgement analysis is
attractive because it provides a solid basis for the FDIC to seek
a TRO or preliminary injunction severely limiting cutting during
litigation.

     For more information on the debt-for-nature swap and Maxxam's
tangled web of high finance, contact WAFC for copies of the
aforementioned articles.

     The logging of redwood forest in the Headwaters complex will
not stop with the passage of the Headwaters bill.  Only court
injunctions can delay PALCO's Timber Harvest Plan implementation.
In fact, PALCO may get its wish of selling only the 4,400 acre
Headwaters grove because that may be all that is left as they
continue to log residual and second growth forest in the 44,000
acre matrix.

     In the view of Hill observers, the Headwaters bill went
further than expected and it went as far as it did due to the
leadership and legislative acumen of Rep.  Hamburg and his staff
and the tireless work of Headwaters activists.  Although the bill
failed to pass the Senate, it was one of few environmental bills
to advance as far as it did in the 103rd Congress.
 Jay Lee