WASHINGTON - Reps. Barbara Cubin of Wyoming, Denny Rehberg of Montana and other House Republicans rolled out a proposal Friday to reduce the threat posed by wildfires and improve the health of forests.

The House Resources Committee is scheduled to begin work on the bill on April 30 before holding hearings on the Republican measure or a Democratic alternative.

Republicans and Democrats are at loggerheads about both the substance of the legislation and how to proceed on it.

Although Republicans and Democrats agree that the forests are in an unhealthy condition because years of fire suppression have led to a build up of dead trees and other flammable debris, they disagree on how to improve the situation.

They have been unable to reach consensus on whether environmental laws should be reined in and where the Interior and Agriculture Departments should focus their efforts.

They also disagree on whether the committee should hold hearings on the bill before beginning work on it.

"We need to put it on the table and get it going," Rehberg said. "Time is of the essence."

A Cubin spokesman said Congress needs to move forward because there is little time to prepare for the 2003 wildfire season.

"She looks forward to moving the bill out of committee, and not only that, we need to get it enacted into law before the fire season," Cubin spokesman Joe Milczewski said. "We held hearings on this last year and this has been developed in consultation with a lot of groups. Hearings now would mean there would be needless delay at a time when we are talking about forests being on fire in a month or two."

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who is an author of the Democratic bill, said that the decision to not hold hearings would inflame an already bad situation between federal agencies and environmentalists.

"The only way to rebuild the trust between local communities, conservation interests, impacted businesses, and federal agencies is to have a vigorous, informed, and public debate on policy and on proposed projects," Miller said. "I am urging the committee to reconsider short-circuiting the legislative process and instead allowing for a full debate on one of the most important issues facing many Western communities."

Miller and other Democrats will try to change key parts of the Republican bill next week. Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., is leading the Republican effort.

The Republican bill aims to expedite the approval process for tree thinning and limit the scope of lawsuits private citizens and environmental groups can file challenging tree cutting.

It would require federal agencies to focus their efforts on federal lands around communities, areas around watersheds, threatened and endangered species habitat, and disease or bug-infested areas.

It also would require federal agencies to develop only one proposal for treating a fire-prone national forest.

Agencies often consider three to five alternatives.

The Republican bill also aims to prevent efforts to thin forests from getting mired in court by requiring a judge to revisit any injunction every 45 days. Under current law, an injunction does not have to be reviewed.

Republicans say that these provisions would allow local land managers to improve the health of the forests.

"I am up in Kalispell now, and the people here and in the rest of Montana realize that resource management occurs at the local level," Rehberg said. "We have hired the land managers for their expertise, but the courts do not recognize those expertise."

Miller and environmental groups are concerned that the bill focuses too much on the federal lands around communities and does not do enough to improve the health of state, tribal and private lands that are loaded with dead trees and other flammable debris.

An analysis of federal data by The Wilderness Society found that 85 percent of the areas around communities at risk from wildfire are on state, tribal and private lands. The Republican bill would authorize pilot programs for these areas.

"If we are going to have wildfire legislation we need to hold it to the highest standard," Chris Mehl, The Wilderness Society's Northern Rockies spokesman, said.

"The main question for them is are you going to make the people who live in the West, your constituents, safer. They are basically telling 85 percent of the people living in the community protection zone, 'You get a demonstration project, but otherwise tough luck.'"