In an October 1 editorial, the Fort Collins Coloradoan baselessly asserted that U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) and U.S. Rep. Mark Udall (D-Eldorado Springs) are participating in a “petty battle” with Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) and U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Fort Morgan) over “who gets credit” for legislation that would confer wilderness protection to portions of Rocky Mountain National Park. The editorial also falsely asserted that “each side insists it has a better plan.” In fact, as the Coloradoan itself reported September 29 in an article by Kevin Darst, the complaint of Salazar and Udall is in fact that the introduction of the Allard-Musgrave bill in the waning days of the current Congress “would delay protection for a quarter-million acres in Rocky Mountain National Park.”

Udall introduced H.R. 3193 (“A bill to designate as wilderness certain lands within the Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado”) on June 30, 2005. Salazar introduced a companion bill, S. 1510, on July 27, 2005. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on Salazar's bill on April 6; the Rocky Mountain News reported on September 29 that "[a]s recently as Wednesday [September 27], Allard joined Salazar in seeking a second hearing on the original bill before the end of the session."

On September 28, Allard and Musgrave introduced legislation -- S. 3986 in the Senate and H.R. 6245 in the House -- “To designate as wilderness certain land within the Rocky Mountain National Park, and for other purposes.”

The News quoted Salazar as saying: “The introduction of this second bill definitely jeopardizes passage of the bill,” and “The Allard-Musgrave bill has no chance of getting a hearing.” In its editorial, the Coloradoan pointed out that the introduction of the Allard-Musgrave bill “is likely to place the wilderness designation out of reach because committee chairpersons often first look for unanimity among the state delegation before advancing bills” and that “it is doubtful Congress will take up the new legislation.” However, the Coloradoan criticized both Democrats and Republicans for “stubbornness.”

Contrary to the Coloradoan's assertion that the Salazar-Udall side “insists it has a better plan,” the News reported that “Udall and Salazar said that the Allard-Musgrave version wasn't significantly different from the original bill.”

The News further reported that Allard had decided to introduce competing legislation as a favor to Musgrave, quoting him as saying that “Rep. Musgrave wanted to introduce this separate bill and I went ahead and put it in.” The News also stated Salazar “said that the bill was introduced so Musgrave could be listed as a sponsor, perhaps helping her re-election bid.” The News quoted Udall as saying, “A cynic might think that this timing is aimed at helping Mrs. Musgrave in her re-election campaign.”

From the editorial “Issue should be RMNP, not who gets credit: Colorado congressional delegation in petty squabble over important topic” in the October 1 edition of the Fort Collins Coloradoan:

The Colorado congressional delegation has shown great unanimity -- in misunderstanding the point about the wilderness designation for Rocky Mountain National Park.

Here at home, it matters little who sponsors the legislation to protect nearly 250,000 acres of the park from future development. Rather, the issue should be getting the work done, not shoving each other out of the way to take bows for work that still faces an uphill climb.

[...]

The camps from the offices of Sen. Ken Salazar and Rep. Mark Udall, both Democrats, and Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, who are Republicans, are facing off in a petty battle. Instead of working out what appears to be less than earth-shattering differences in their proposals to create a stronger bill, each side insists it has a better plan. Of course, each side is also offering a less-than-sincere olive branch, as well, insisting they are willing to work with each other as long as it is on their version.

While it's not particularly unusual to have competing bills from within a delegation, the practice is not productive. Such stubbornness is likely to place the wilderness designation out of reach because committee chairpersons often first look for unanimity among the state delegation before advancing bills.

A spokesman from Allard's office insists that the November election had no bearing on this week's announcement that the senator and Musgrave, who is in a contentious election, would seek to advance their own bill rather than amend Salazar and Udall's bill. If politics was a factor in the decision, then the tactic failed miserably to advance Musgrave's agenda.

If timing, and not election-year politics, was the impetus, then that, too, is a failure because it is doubtful Congress will take up the new legislation.