Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
June 22, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 994 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE CHAIRMAN
BEFORE THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
SUBJECT - THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF THE
FOREST SERVICE'S RULEMAKINGS AND REGIONAL PLANS
BODY:
This week's U.S. News and World Report, in an article concerning
Clinton's flurry to create new national monuments, quotes one Administration
official joking, We're throwing darts at a map, saying what will he declare
next." I can tell you what he will declare next whatever The Wilderness Society
and Sierra Club want him to. In the last two years we have come to learn that
whatever the national environmental groups ask for, they get. While it may
appear to some that this Administration's monument darts are being thrown
indiscriminately and randomly, they are hitting primarily in Republican
districts, already locking up over 10 million acres in new monuments, with more
darts flying our way. This monumental abuse of power is actually minor compared
to the lock- ups being perpetrated through a host of other policies and
initiatives being implemented by the Administration. For example, the
prohibitions provision in the Clinton/Gore roadless policy will lock up over 50
million acres and the procedures provision has the potential to affect ALL OTHER
national forest lands. And what isn't tied up in monuments and the roadless
policy will be hamstrung by the agency's new planning regulations,
transportation policy, watershed approach, and ecoregion plans such as ICBEMP
and the Sierra Nevada Framework- and all the while, environmental groups are
crying to the press that these policies just don't go far enough. This sham is
the environmental community's transparent attempt to make their new sport
utility vehicle look like a mountain bike. In reality, they've gotten every car
on the lot and every bike in the store.
Each one of these new
initiatives is, in itself, damaging to the successful management of our national
forests and to the economic health of rural communities, but applied together,
the cumulative effects will result in the demise of the national forests as
lands of multiple-uses. And why? Just to appease a small but powerful and well
funded environmental elite. I predict that this extremism will eventually ring
the death knell for a once proud and viable agency. When the public finally
realizes that the Forest Service, through lack of action, is responsible for
creating the tinderbox and the resulting fires that inevitably will occur, and
when the public finds they have been shut out of their own lands, not even the
powerful environmental lobby will be able to save the agency. Who knows what
will replace it, but whatever it is, hopefully it will be something that really
believes in caring for the land and serving people."
Chairman
Chenoweth-Hage is expected to ask the following questions to the Forest Service:
First, I would like to ask you about the rulemaking process.
1. When a
Federal agency proposes a new rule, how does it notify the public?
2.
How long does it accept comment on the proposal?3. When and where are the
effects of the proposal disclosed?
4. When, and how, is a final decision
reached?
5. Once the decision made, how is it announced?
We are
here to discuss a number of initiatives today. In particular, we are hoping to
understand how these many rules and planning efforts interrelate, and what will
be the cumulative effect of the many forthcoming decisions. Since decisions have
not been made, we can discuss the effects in the context of the preferred
alternative, or based on the array of alternatives that are under consideration
for each rule and plan. Does that seem appropriate to you?
Now before we
proceed, I must ask about a radio report that aired Tuesday morning on National
Public Radio. The report was about President Clinton's efforts to complete as
many accomplishments as he can before he leaves office. In this story, Joe
Lockhart, the President's press secretary, told NPR: We're going to do a lot
more- you've seen millions of acres set aside under the roadless and national
monument program, and you've seen a decision today on diesel fuel, which we can
do through the rulemaking process, that will have a dramatic effect five-ten
years from now on air quality in this country. So we're going to push that to
the limit."
Now this plainly sounds like the millions of acres set aside
under the 'roadless program' are a done deal. Don't you agree?
Don't you
agree that Mr. Lockhart's comments prejudice this process more than a little?
Now, even though the Forest Service is still accepting comments on the
roadless policy, Mr. Lockhart is not the only Administration official who has
recently indicated the decision is already made. Recent news reports reveal that
Vice President Gore told the League of Conservation Voters on May 30 that, I
quote, Just so I'm crystal clear about it, no new road building and no timber
sales in the roadless areas of our national forests. Period."
Since we are here to talk about the interrelationship of the many rules
that are pending agency - or Administration - decisions, and not to delve into
the merits of one rule or another, I would like you to please explain:
6. How do the Vice President's comments, and Mr. Lockhart's comments,
comply with the process you described to me a few minutes ago for taking public
comment and reaching decisions? And-
7. How do the Administration's
pronouncements on the roadless area policy fit within the
Forest Service's proposed policy for developing forest plan amendments and
revisions? Clearly, decision has already been made, before the public comment is
even, and it will unilaterally alter many forest plans that were developed with
years of work by the agency aad the public.
Thank you, and please
explain to me, how can this Administration be so arrogant as to ask for comments
on a supposedly "proposed" policy from hundreds of thousands of people, devote
countless man-hours to analyzing the comments, spending millions of dollars of
the taxpayers money, when in the middle of the process it is already painfully
clear that the decision is already made?
END
LOAD-DATE: June 23, 2000 
