Are Washingtonians perturbed that they're being told to thank the
president for his veto of the Rescission Bill (containing the Gorton
timber Salvage rider)? Have any of you heard a whisper from the president
about the rider itself? Take a look at the following, from Birdchat.

Time for Washingtonians to send another note to president at whitehouse.gov.
No thanks to the prez from me yet.
Peter
- - - - - - - - - -
>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 10:54:56 -0400
>From: Gail Mackiernan <GAIL%UMDD.BITNET at cmsa.Berkeley.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Logging Rider Vetoed!
>To: Multiple recipients of list BIRDCHAT
> <BIRDCHAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>

>This from today's Washington Post:

>"Behind the public show, Seanet and House leaders said they were ready to
>negotiate with the White House on changes in the legislation rather than
>attempt to override the veto. But they indicated that the changes would have
>to be modest and said that the PROVISIONS CALLING FOR EXPEDITED TIMBER SALES
>ON FEDERAL LANDS WERE NOT NEGOTIABLE"(emphasis mine)

>"Clinton, in his veto speech, condemned these provisions but White House
>officials have said on several occasions the timber provisions alone WOULD
>NOT PROMPT a veto. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Mark Hatfield
>(R-Ore) said that the timber language was essential for expediting the
>harvesting of dead and dying trees, which has been held up by suits from
>environmental groups. House Republicans have been even more adamant about
>clearing away obstacles to the cutting."

>>From an article by Anne Devroy, Post Staff writer, June 8, 1995.

>So I would agree with Paul and 1) urge you all to send a post to the White
>House approving the veto and EMPHASIZING the need to dump the Gorton rider
>and 2) not let up on your House and Senate representatives about this threat to
>national forests (and more seriously, to the primacy of law and science in
>the management of public lands -- as opposed to ideology).

>Gail Mackiernan, gail at umdd.umd.edu