Tag Archives: Jon Tester

Will lame duck Congress pass any Montana lands bills?

Will any of the languishing Montana lands bills get passed by year’s end? . . .

In the lame-duck weeks of December 2010, Sen. Jon Tester tried to get his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act attached to any must-pass legislation likely to make it out of Congress before the end of the year.

The effort failed.

But this December has a much larger slate of Montana-related lands bills looking for a vote, and a Democratic Senate caucus about to lose its majority status in January. That’s got a lot of congressional watchers wondering what last-minute legislation might wind up under President Barack Obama’s Christmas tree.

Read more . . .

Missoulian pushes for post-election action on North Fork Watershed Protection Act

In a post-election editorial, the Missoulian advocates action on the North Fork Watershed Protection Act . . .

…The act is aimed at placing permanent protections on the side of the Flathead watershed that falls within the United States. The Canadians have already granted such protections on their side of the border, honoring a longstanding agreement between our two countries. Unfortunately, and frustratingly, the U.S. has not held up its end of the bargain by prohibiting new oil, gas and mining activity in the North Fork.

The legislation has widespread, bipartisan support. But in today’s politically divided Congress, even the most worthy bills can be held up by partisan gridlock.

Hopefully, all three of Montana’s congressional delegates make it their first order of business to work together to get the North Fork Watershed Protection Act approved by Congress at last…

Read more . . .

North Fork Watershed Protection Act gets mired in election-year politics

It seems the North Fork Watershed Protection Act is bogged down in election-year digestive by-product. Tristan Scott over at the Flathead Beacon just posted an excellent discussion of the situation . . .

When the state’s congressional leaders introduced the North Fork Watershed Protection Act last year, the measure to ban new energy development on 430,000 acres of wild and scenic river corridor near Glacier National Park stood out for its singular brand of bipartisan support.

The Montana-made bill gained near universal esteem, even at the height of partisanship, and was hailed by conservationists, oil tycoons and politicians alike as a commonsense piece of legislation – 80 percent of energy leases in the area have been voluntarily released, and it dovetails with an effort by British Columbia’s parliament to place similar protections north of the border, on the headwaters of the Flathead River.

Representing the first public lands bill in recent memory to garner the full support of Montana’s entire congressional delegation, it also provided a convenient platform for the state’s electorate to display the kind of esprit de corps that Washington lacks, a welcome departure from the gridlock that has stalled Congress, and a rare display of bipartisan teamwork greeted by much local fanfare…

But just as the North Fork bill appeared poised to transcend the morass, it fell victim to the same political arrest that has come to typify Congress – a fanatical brand of doctrinarian politics from which the measure and its backers attempted to distance themselves…

Read more . . .

Tester says North Fork Watershed Protection Act being held up in Senate

It seems three U.S. Senators are trying to use the North Fork Watershed Protection Act as a bargaining chip .  . .

Sen. Jon Tester claimed last week that the North Fork Watershed Protection Act was being held up by three Republican senators — Tom Cruz, of Texas, Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma, and Pat Toomey, of Pennsylvania.

The Act, which would ban all future oil, mineral and gas leases on federal lands in the North Fork and Middle Fork of the Flathead River, sailed through the Republican-controlled House last month on a voice vote. Republican Rep. Steve Daines sponsored the bill.

Tester claimed the three Senate Republicans holding up the bill want other federal lands opened for exploration if lands here are withdrawn. Tester noted that the Senate has different rules than the House, and it’s much easier for a few Senators to hold up legislation.

Read more . . .

Interior Secretary discusses North Fork legislation at local meeting

Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, along with Senators Jon Tester and John Walsh, were in town Saturday at the Hungry Horse Ranger Station to talk about the North Fork Watershed Protection Act and allied subjects.

(That doggone Frank Vitale sure gets around.  Watch the associated video. You’ll see Frank, as well as some other familiar faces.) . . .

Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell made a trip to Hungry Horse Saturday with Senators Jon Tester and John Walsh to discuss recent North Fork legislation.

Secretary Jewell greeted those in attendance at the Hungry Horse Ranger station, and then talked about the recent North Fork Legislation.

The North Fork Watershed Protection Act would protect over 430,000 acres of land along the north and middle forks of the Flathead River from energy development.

Secretary Jewell stressed the importance of protecting Montana’s natural resources, and also spoke about the economic benefits of outdoor recreation.

Read more . . .

Further reading: The Flathead Beacon has a more detailed write-up.

North Fork – one more step forward

The Missoula Independent gave the North Fork Watershed Protection Act some attention this week . . .

Earlier this month, the U.S. House passed the North Fork Watershed Protection Act in what conservationists hailed as a critical step for wildlife and clean water in northwest Montana. That approval, secured by Rep. Steve Daines, marks the most significant advancement yet in a fight former Sen. Max Baucus waged over four decades in Congress.

The moment itself passed quickly, in a manner typically used to approve small, non-controversial bills. The measure’s speedy passage on the House floor was attributed to the widespread bipartisan support it has gained over time. Proponents now include county commissions, city officials, chambers of commerce, sporting groups and business leaders across western Montana. Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP America and ExxonMobil subsidiary XTO Energy have backed the bill as well.

Read more . . .

North Fork Watershed Protection Act passes U.S. House

Well, now. The North Fork Watershed Protection Act just passed the U.S. House this afternoon . . .

The House of Representatives passed the North Fork Watershed Protection Act by voice vote on Tuesday afternoon, passing the issue back to the Senate for final approval.

Rep. Steve Daines, R-Mont., told his colleagues the bill was the first landscape protection act in nearly 30 years to get support from the whole state congressional delegation. Senators Jon Tester and John Walsh, both Democrats, have also pushed it on their side of the Capitol.

“Sen. Max Baucus began working on this bill since his very first year in Congress, in 1974,” Daines said of the state’s former senior senator, who retired in February. “I’m proud to be part of the effort to get it done and across the finish line.”

Read more . . .

Further reading: North Fork Watershed Protection Act Passes U.S. House (Flathead Beacon)

MTPR radio does segment on North Fork Watershed Protection Act

MTPR radio did a segment yesterday morning on the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, including a brief interview with Michael Jamison of the NPCA . . .

A major element for protection of the North Fork Flathead River Valley moved forward this week. Representative Steve Daines announced a bill that retires many oil and gas leases in the area unanimously passed the House Natural Resources Committee. The North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013 would restrict new mineral development in the North Fork of the Flathead.

This House bill mirrors one introduced by Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus.

Glacier Program Manager Michael Jamison with the National Parks Conservation Association said the issue was taken up by Senator Baucus when he was first in office, in the late 1970’s. At the time there were several proposals for mountain-top-removal coal mines in the Canadian Flathead.

Read more/listen to the segment . . .

Tester’s forest bill passes Senate committee

A tweaked version of Senator John Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act made it through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this morning . . .

A new version of Sen. Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act passed a divided Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday morning, clearing a path for the full Senate to consider it.

The latest draft of the four-year-old bill keeps a mandate to harvest or thin 100,000 acres of timber in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai national forests over 15 years. But it switches about 23,000 acres of proposed wilderness into less-restrictive recreation areas.

That brings the tally to about 637,000 acres of new wilderness and 360,000 acres of recreation areas allowing some motorized or commercial use in Montana.

Other changes include a requirement for the U.S. Forest Service to file a compliance report if it fails to meet the bill’s performance requirements, and a guarantee the Montana pilot program won’t draw funds from other state programs or Forest Service regions.

Read more . . .

Tester’s forest bill set for markup this week

Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act gets its first real hearing when it comes in front of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week . . .

Sen. Jon Tester’s bill authorizing more logging and more wilderness in Montana goes before a Senate committee review on Thursday, four years after it was introduced.

“This is the first time the bill has been voted on anywhere in Congress,” said Paul Spitler, wilderness campaign director for the Wilderness Society in Bozeman. “It’s a pretty important day for this legislation for it to see a vote.”

The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act gets a markup hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee – a crucial step in moving legislation toward a vote of the whole chamber.

Read more . . .