Almost overnight, by unilateral executive action the President has effectively doubled the size of land restricted to diverse human activity, leaving those of us in Congress dumbfounded, the Forest Service paralyzed, and citizens without an voice.

The abrupt declaration, mis-labeled a "proposal," curtailed any activity involving roads and motorized vehicles, and, in fact, created defacto wilderness areas. The President's policy has proven to be divisive, coming at a time when those with differing interests have begun to work together through consensus-based decision making in order to advance a common goal: To use our land in a responsible manner, in a sustainable manner, in the kind of way that will meet most of our interests, and that will ensure a quality environment and abundant wildlife habitat.

Aggressive opposition to this hasty designation is not necessarily because of a disagreement in some level of environmental ethic. Rather, I believe Americans are outraged because of a disagreement over the process the President chose to carry out his wishes.

Missing from the President's action is people. His action arrogantly ignores the citizens who use the land, and how his decision will affect them. He offered a 60 day feedback period, which ends December 20th. Such a brief public comment period regarding a massive national policy is more than inadequate; it is irresponsible. If this is the President's new method of government decision-making, then we have truly abandoned a "government by the people, for the people, and of the people."

Clinton is behaving in a way that he hopes will make his Christmas wish for a favorable legacy come true. I believe his arbitrary actions are unfair to America's citizens, and that's why I'm working with 32 of my colleagues to extend the comment period. Regardless of whether individuals support or oppose the wilderness land proposal, few can argue against allowing ample time to hear their neighbor's perspective. The reason the President is insisting the land be boarded-up as soon as possible is to guarantee that he is in office when the final decision is made, thereby securing him his desired legacy. Instead of working solely to establish a legacy, the President should be working to build consensus.

The land lock-up does more than shut-out the people, it helps establish a ruling bureaucracy through the Forest Service. We are seeing a dramatic change in the philosophy of the public's access to our Forest Service from openness to an element of closeness. In the early 1900s, when Gifford Pinchot convinced Teddy Roosevelt to remove forested lands from the public preserve and make them forested preserves, the concept was that these lands were OPEN. While they were protected, to be utilized for forest products, and to be maintained for water quality and wildlife habitat. The fundamental principle was that the people could always have access.

Something is wrong when a citizen seeks the permission of the national government to be granted permission to access public lands in his or her community. Public land management is currently embroiled in fights, appeals, and litigation. Every decision made by our public lands managers ends up in court, oftentimes fought out over weeks, months, and years. Instead of igniting a nationwide battle, as the President's initiative does, I believe we should let the extreme sides of the issue fight their battles in litigation and bureaucracy, while we, the other 90 percent solve our differences at the round table of consensus and compromise.

Yes, it is our duty to manage our public lands responsibly to ensure water quality, wildlife habitat, and the multiple-use of our public land base. We need our public lands to be used in a way that appeals to all of our citizens, not to just a single, relatively narrow-minded group.

Our public lands hold great benefits for all of us. There are many resources available on our public lands from our renewable forests, to the opportunities to raise cattle on them, to mining for minerals below the surface, to a wide variety of recreational activities, to ensuring the well-being of endangered species and other wildlife values. Without question, our public lands are a national treasure.