Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
February 22, 2000
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1562 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY February 22, 2000 LARRY CRAIG SENATOR SENATE ENERGY
& NATURAL RESOURCES FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT LOGGING ROADS
BODY:
Opening Statement of Senator Larry Craig
February 22, 2000
Good afternoon. Today we will continue our oversight
of the Clinton Administration's roadless area initiative. On
November 2, Mr. Dombeck, you received a clear sense of our views on the merits
of the initiative the Administration has unilaterally pursued, notwithstanding
our repeated offers to work with you on the development of a new transportation
policy and additional wilderness protections.
Our hearing today will not
focus on the merits of your proposal. Rather, we will review the process you
have used to date in developing this rule-making. One of your senior advisors
recently described this process in the press as "democracy in action." I must
tell you that I completely disagree. Democracy in action involves something far
more fundamental than counting how many public meetings you schedule, or
bragging about how many comments you receive. Instead, it involves conducting
your agency's business in a fashion that is fundamentally fair to all interested
parties, analytically thorough in its approach, and open to the sunshine through
public disclosure of your actions. Your efforts so far fail on all counts.
Agency rule-making is a very serious undertaking. This is especially the
case in this Administration where the agencies have elected to avoid Congress
and the legislative process and move their agendas for-ward largely - if not
exclusively - through rule-making. Just as the Framers constructed a series of
checks and balances to govern the legislative process, so have the Congress and
the Executive Branch enacted statutory standards to insure the integrity of the
rule- making process.
After analyzing hundreds of White House,
Department, and Agency documents requested by both Senate and House
investigators, it is our conclusion that you have violated several of these
statutory standards. You have fatally tainted this rule- making. Specifically,
we will review with you today documentary evidence that you have violated: (1)
the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act and its limitations on ex
parte contacts during rule-making the basic goals, as well as the specific
requirements, of the Federal Advisory Committee Act; (3 ) the public disclosure
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act; (4) the public participation
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act; and (5) the limitations
on the use of taxpayers' funds contained in several appropriations statutes. My
colleagues on this panel will review each of these in turn. Some would point to
the apparent, broad support for your initiative to dismiss as "unimportant" or
"inconsequential your failure to adhere to basic due process. Perhaps you even
believe this yourself, bolstered by the accolades of eastern editorial writers,
or the support and polling data provided you by environmental activists. You
could argue that the ends of this initiative are so urgent and so highly desired
that quibbling over your means is irrelevant, or at best, as one of your
memoranda describes it, an attempt by Congress to "stymie" the Administration's
efforts. Some of your supporters are so intent to stop road building and so
opposed to cutting trees that they would object to you following the law if it
impeded their goals. Like Will Roper, the son-in-law of Sir Thomas More, they
object to giving the devil the benefit of the law. Perhaps you asked them. as
More asked Roper, "what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get
after the devil?" I'm sure their answer would echo Roper's to- state that, "Yes,
I'd cut down every law in England to do that." Regrettably, the record we will
review identifies you as Will Roper, not Sir Thomas I would suggest to you Mr.
Dornbeck that someday - perhaps sooner than you would like - you may be faced
with an Administration with objectives somewhat different than yours or the
supporters of this initiative. At that time, you may wish that the due process
protections of these statutes had not been weakened on your watch. Perhaps you
will regret that you did not advise your supporters as More advised Roper, "and
when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you
hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws,
from coast to coast, and if you cut them down do you really think you could
stand upright in the winds that would blow them? Yes, I'd give the devil the
benefit of law for my own safety's sake."
LOAD-DATE:
February 24, 2000 
