Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
July 26, 2000, Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1414 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE: FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT
HEADLINE: TESTIMONY INCREASED PROTECTION FOR NATIONAL
FOREST LAND
TESTIMONY-BY: LARRY CRAIG , SENATOR
BODY:
Opening Statement for Senator Larry Craig
July 26, 2000 Good afternoon. Today the Subcommittee will continue its oversight
of the Administration's roadless area initiative. This
rule-making has spawned as much conflict between the Congress and the
Administration -- and among the public at large -- as any in my experience as an
elected official. But on one important point, I am in complete accord with the
Administration: this rule-making is the keystone of the Clinton environmental
legacy. Of course, I reach this conclusion for very different reasons. The
Clinton Administration would have you believe that this legacy reflects their
strong commitment to wilderness values. In our first hearing, Senator Murkowski
needed about thirty seconds to dispose of this bit of political hubris. He noted
that this Administration has the worst record of any since the passage of the
1964 Wilderness Act in securing the passage of national forest wilderness
legislation. In fact, the Clinton Administration has not sent forward a
legislative proposal for a acre of national forest wilderness. I see this
rule-making reflecting a very different legacy. It is a nearly perfect
illustration of the arrogance of power that prevents this Administration from
working collaboratively with people of different views to achieve meaningful and
lasting results. The only legacy will be the heavy caseload of pending lawsuits
over their efforts. In our past hearings, we have focused on: (1) the lack of
information available for public comment; (2) public meetings that were poorly
publicized, badly organized, and/or- improperly conducted under the National
Environmental Policy Act; (3) confusion over what decisions were being made at
different stages of the rule-making process; (4) violations of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act and the Administrative Procedures Act; and (5) the
Administration's refusal to follow Council on Environmental Quality guidance on
involving interested states in the development of NEPA documents. As the
rule-making has progressed, many of these problems have been repeated. For
instance, we are hearing that many constituents have been unable to secure
copies of the draft Environmental Impact Statement. As a consequence, there were
numerous requests for an extension of the comment period. Once again, these were
ignored as the comment period slammed shut on July 17. Not, content to merely
repeat its old errors, however, the Administration is pioneering all new ways to
fatally taint this rule-making. Thus, for example, we were treated to the
political spectacle of the Vice President's performance before the League of
Conservation Voters in late May. He stated that, not only would he eliminate all
road building, he would prohibit all timber harvests in roadless
areas as well. In effect, he announced the selection of the final
alternative at the beginning of the public comment period. At that point, in
time, this rule- making descended from the "tragedy" of good intentions gone
awry, to the "farce" of purporting to conduct an unbiased proceeding against the
back-drop of a transparent, political exercise in interest group snuggling.
Until last week, for me, that is where this rule-making fell - - somewhere
between tragedy and farce -- particularly in light of what we could have
accomplished with an honest effort to secure wilderness protection for some or
most of these areas. Then I read the Chief s June 3Oth letter to all Forest
Service employees. I realized that we have moved from farcical floundering to
behavior that is clinically delusional. For instance, only the screenwriter for
the Cain Mutiny could have written that "collaboration does not alleviate our
responsibility to make decisions that we believe in the best long term interest
of the land or the people who depend on and enjoy it." And of all of the
characters in popular literature, only Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss could have opined
that "we have changed the tenor of the debate.. no longer is our agenda dictated
by litigation, lawsuits, and controversial appropriations' riders." Facts
probably do not matter in the face of this level of unhinged grandiosity.
Nevertheless, the facts are this. As far as lawsuits are concerned, this is a
"velcro rule-making." Three lawsuits have been filed to date, and many more
coming. With respect to controversial appropriations riders, they are still
coming from both sides of the aisle at roughly the same pace, and on the same
issues. Last week we defeated for the third time in three years, an amendment to
reduce the timber sales program. Supporters of this amendment seem generally
unimpressed with the Forest Service's so-called "Natural Resources Agenda." As
far as my own amendment is concerned, I want to make it clear that I have
decided to forebear action until the courts rule on the pending legal challenges
to this regulation. I have not foresworn legislative action. My advice to the
Administration would be - do not rest easy. I move forward today, more out of
sorrow than in anger. And that sorrow is for what might have been -- had we been
presented with a serious proposal to enact lasting protection for national
forest roadless areas.
LOAD-DATE:
August 11, 2000, Friday 
