Forest Management Plans

House Roll Call Vote 384

2003 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

Yes

Votes For

198

Votes Against

222

Not Voting

14

The U.S. national forest system encompasses 191 million acres of land–an area equivalent to the size of Texas– across some 44 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. These public lands harbor much of our nation’s biodiversity, providing habitat for more than 25 percent of species at risk of extinction and sheltering more intact populations of rare wildlife than any other federal land system.

Unfortunately, for many years, the Forest Service tolerated or encouraged clear-cutting and over-exploitation of these natural resources. As a result, more than half of America’s national forests have been destroyed or damaged by logging, oil and gas development, mining and other industrial uses. To reverse this trend, Congress in 1976 enacted the historic National Forest Management Act (NFMA) to bring accountability and sustainability to forest management, grounding it in sound science, public participation, and rational planning. The “population viability rule,” drafted by the Reagan administration to carry out NFMA’s mandate to protect the diversity of national forest lands, requires that planners determine whether forest management practices are protecting individual species. This rule has become one of the most important mechanisms for keeping at-risk species off the endangered species list.

In 2002, the Bush administration proposed sweeping new regulatory changes to the National Forest Management Act that would fundamentally impair the future of America’s national forests. The proposed regulations, undertaken without scientific input and with the full cooperation of the timber industry, would eliminate the population viability rule, weakening safeguards for wildlife and wildlife habitats. Their proposed changes would also exempt forest plans from NEPA environmental review and place strict new limits on the ability of citizens to participate in the development of forest plans. Finally, the Bush administration proposed to make ecological sustainability of national forests a lower priority, and reduce the roles of science and monitoring in forest planning.

During consideration of H.R. 2691, the Interior appropriations bill, Representative Tom Udall (D-NM) offered an amendment to prevent the administration from finalizing or implementing these new regulations. On July 17, 2003, the House rejected the Udall amendment by a 198-222 vote (House roll call vote 384). YES is the pro-environment vote. At press time, the administration had not yet finalized its proposed rule changes.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2024 State Scorecard Average

15%

Alaska
2024 State Scorecard Average

58%

Arizona
2024 State Scorecard Average

30%

Arkansas
2024 State Scorecard Average

4%

California
2024 State Scorecard Average

75%

Colorado
2024 State Scorecard Average

52%

Connecticut
2024 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2024 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2024 State Scorecard Average

30%

Georgia
2024 State Scorecard Average

35%

Hawaii
2024 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2024 State Scorecard Average

5%

Illinois
2024 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2024 State Scorecard Average

24%

Iowa
2024 State Scorecard Average

5%

Kansas
2024 State Scorecard Average

25%

Kentucky
2024 State Scorecard Average

20%

Louisiana
2024 State Scorecard Average

21%

Maine
2024 State Scorecard Average

71%

Maryland
2024 State Scorecard Average

83%

Massachusetts
2024 State Scorecard Average

96%

Michigan
2024 State Scorecard Average

54%

Minnesota
2024 State Scorecard Average

47%

Mississippi
2024 State Scorecard Average

24%

Missouri
2024 State Scorecard Average

21%

Montana
2024 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2024 State Scorecard Average

4%

Nevada
2024 State Scorecard Average

72%

New Hampshire
2024 State Scorecard Average

88%

New Jersey
2024 State Scorecard Average

78%

New Mexico
2024 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2024 State Scorecard Average

63%

North Carolina
2024 State Scorecard Average

47%

North Dakota
2024 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2024 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2024 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oregon
2024 State Scorecard Average

68%

Pennsylvania
2024 State Scorecard Average

56%

Rhode Island
2024 State Scorecard Average

100%

South Carolina
2024 State Scorecard Average

17%

South Dakota
2024 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2024 State Scorecard Average

13%

Texas
2024 State Scorecard Average

33%

Utah
2024 State Scorecard Average

6%

Vermont
2024 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2024 State Scorecard Average

55%

Washington
2024 State Scorecard Average

72%

West Virginia
2024 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2024 State Scorecard Average

24%

Wyoming
2024 State Scorecard Average

3%