The result will be wildfire policy that effectively removes citizen participation, interferes with the judicial system, increases commercial logging, leaves old-growth and roadless forests vulnerable, all while leaving communities at risk.

"This isn't compromise, it's surrender to the Bush administration and timber companies who apparently have no interest in protecting communities from forest fires," said Sean Cosgrove, Sierra Club's Forest Policy Specialist. "Congress managed to take a terrible policy and turn it to an even worse bill. There is a better way, but it requires putting the safety of communities ahead of the interests of timber companies."

The Bush plan passed by Congress stands in sharp contrast to a proposal by conservation groups that would focus aid on communities at risk from wildfire. The Sierra Club and other conservation groups embrace the Community Protection Plan, emphasizing fuel reduction projects and "firewise" protections along the boundaries of communities adjacent to forest lands. The Bush administration and their allies in the Congress used the wildfires in Southern California as an excuse to pass their poorly-designed bill through the Senate two weeks ago.

Over the past year, hundreds of nationally and locally elected officials, scientists, and homeowners from across the country have spoken out against the Bush plan. The Forest Service’s own fire scientists found that the best way to protect communities from fire is to thin brush and small trees within 500 yards of where people live. But that's not where the bulk of attention is from the Bush administration and Congress. Instead, they focus on thinning in the backcountry and across the landscape.

"Communities across the West are not getting the help they desperately need. If the Bush administration and Congress are serious about protecting homes and lives, they should appropriate sufficient funds and earmark them for work around communities," said Cosgrove.

In waging a public relations offensive to pass the controversial bill, the timber industry, the Bush administration and congressional allies relied heavily on claims that citizen participation and judicial review hamstring fuel reduction projects. Yet another GAO report issued on October 24 provided no evidence to support contentions by the Bush Administration and Congressional allies that fuel reduction efforts have been obstructed by conservationists. According to the report, the overwhelming majority of projects -- 95 percent -- go forward in a timely manner, even when questions are raised by citizens, industry, recreation groups, conservationists or other interested parties. The latest GAO report found that 95 percent of the 818 fuel reduction projects reviewed by the GAO were ready for implementation within the standard 90-day review period (GAO-04-52).