THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday June 14, 2000, the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. TAYLOR) had been disposed of and the bill
[Page: H4499] GPO's PDF
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, the amendment by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS), adding a new section at the end of title I, if offered, shall begin with his initial 5-minute speech in support of the amendment. No further debate on that amendment shall be in order.
Amendments to that amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. NETHERCUTT) or the gentleman from Utah (Mr. HANSEN), each shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of both the chairman and the ranking member to allow me to speak out of turn.
The reason I would like to address the House this morning is with respect to the roadless forest initiative. My colleague and friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. STUPAK), had originally looked at introducing some limitation amendments on the roadless forest initiative and as he will say shortly has decided not to introduce them. In some ways I regret that but I certainly respect his decision.
I rise in opposition to the roadless forest initiative. I represent a national forest that was once the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forest. Like so many others, I have a concern over the effect of the roadless forest initiative on the economy of my district and the health and safety of our national forests.
I would like to make three brief quick points this morning to show the breadth of opposition in my home area to this roadless forest initiative.
First, local units of government in the State of Wisconsin in general, and in the Eighth Congressional District, oppose the roadless forest initiative. The Wisconsin Counties Association opposes it. The Counties of Vilas and Oneida and Oconto and others oppose it. They oppose it because they understand how dependent our communities and our economy is upon the national forest, recreation, and timber harvesting.
They also oppose it because they recognize that cutting off these forests to human access poses substantial fire and safety risks.
Point number two, the roadless forest initiative violates a historic compact between local units of government and the Federal Government. This national forest in northern Wisconsin was created in the 1920s. There were a series of transactions between local units of government, county forests, the private sector and the Federal Government.
On record, on the public record and in public documents, specifically these transactions were made with an understanding that access to the national forests would be maintained, in fact, explicitly that commercial access to the forests would be maintained. Yet, the roadless forest initiative, if it is implemented, would break that understanding, would break that agreement.
Very clearly, the Federal Government is on the verge of breaking its word with the people of northeastern Wisconsin and very clearly these local leaders would never, would never, have transferred county forest to the national forest if they knew that years down the line we would go back on our word.
Finally and most damning, the Forest Service employees of northern Wisconsin themselves oppose the roadless forest initiative. The very people being called upon to implement the roadless forest initiative oppose it. They have taken a formal position through Local 2165 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, they have taken a formal position against the roadless forest initiative. They understand the difficulties of enforcing it. They understand how it will do tremendous damage to our way of life and they understand how the roadless forest initiative has failed to take into account the local concerns in northern Wisconsin.
I will later place in the RECORD these resolutions demonstrating the clear opposition in northern Wisconsin to this initiative.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. GREEN) indicated, we were prepared to offer up to several amendments to block the roadless initiative and the road management rule. Instead, through conversations with the Chair and the ranking member, we have decided not to.
These policies and rules that are currently pending before the National Forest Service are still pending. We will have time in the months ahead to help fashion and mold hopefully something we can all live with.
Let me just take a few minutes here and explain what is going on with the roadless initiative and the road management policy.
[Time: 10:45]
These are new Forest Service policies. They are decisions affecting the national forests throughout the country. They are not found in any of the local-national forest management plans, and they are developed without a local input and without local forest officials' input.
Now, the roadless initiative on the face of it does not sound too bad, because it includes defined roadless areas . In my two national forests in Ottawa, that is 4,600 acres and in the Hiawatha National Forest, that is 7,600 acres.
We could probably agree that, in those areas that are identified, it makes some sense not to put roads; and we agree that could make some sense. But then it calls for other unroaded areas , other unroaded areas . We do not know the size of those areas . We do not know where they are located. It cannot be simply identified.
So if we cannot identify the other unroaded areas , why would we let a policy go through and we as Members of this Congress allow a policy to go through that we have no clue, no clue where these other areas are. Talk to Washington officials, they say one's local officials know. Talk to our local forest officials, and we have had hearings on this part, and they said we do not know because we do not have the guidelines. So they would let a policy go through.
Look, the proper role on roadless initiative, identify the areas ; and if one wants it to be a wilderness area, that is a proper role of Congress. We should do it.
Proposals undetermine other roaded areas . It limits one's access. It limits one's use. It limits one's enjoyment of the forest.
If it was the roadless initiative, we could probably live with that, but look at what else is going on at the same time. At the exact time is this thing called road management rule. The only way one can build a road in the national forest if this road management rule goes through is if there is a compelling reason for a road.
Temporary roads that we use and rely on for fire fighting, for insect control, for harvesting timber are not recognized. No more temporary roads, none whatsoever.
Who has to agree to it? Not the local foresters, but the regional forester. In Milwaukee, they are going to decide for Michigan and Wisconsin whether or not there is going to be a road in northern Michigan regardless of what the local forestry officials say.
So it virtually bans road construction and reconstruction. So in other words, one cannot even fix up a forest road if this policy goes through, only essential classified roads, no feeder roads, no feeder roads. It does not recognize temporary roads for forest timbers.
So put the roadless initiative with this road management rule that no one knows anything about, put it together, and one has new policies, new rules that will supersede existing locally developed forest management plans in our national forest.
The results are one is going to have a national policy that says one size fits all. We lose our local control. There is no control input. Economic impact is not even recognized. For northern Wisconsin and northern Michigan and Minnesota, we rely upon our national forests, not just for timber sales, for recreation, no personal enjoyment, for hunting; but one has no input. Those economies are not even recognized as we develop these policies.
Last but not least, the new policies and rules change the established use of the forest, the access to the forest, and the activities that can be performed within the forest.
[Page: H4500] GPO's PDF
What we have here, as we have debated this bill many times in the past, legislative attempts to limit road building, to limit reconstruction of roads in our national forests. They cannot pass that. They cannot come before Congress and legislatively pass it. So they are doing this back-door approach through a rulemaking process on road management that there is no input.
One can write one's comments, but there is not a meeting anywhere in the United States where people from the local national forest did come and confront the local forest people and say here is what we need roads for. Why cannot one reconstruct this one road that goes to our lake? Because they are going to put through an administrative rule underneath the Administrative Procedures Act.
So I urge all Members to look at the roadless initiative. When one applies the road management on top of that roadless initiative, we have serious problems with what is going on in our national forests. I ask them to be vigilant and fight these policies by the National Forest Service. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman REGULA) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS), ranking member, for allowing the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. GREEN) and I to proceed outside of order.
New Forest Service Policies/Rules
(Decisions affecting National Forests; not found in Forest Management Plans; developed without local community & local forest officials input)
ROADLESS INITIATIVE
(Includes defined Roadless Areas and undefined ``other unroaded'' areas )
Wilderness Designation is proper role of Congress.
Proposes undetermined ``other unroaded areas'' .
Limits access, use & enjoyment of forest.
ROAD MANAGEMENT RULE
(Only if compelling reason for a road; no ``temp'' roads; EIS signed by Regional Forester)
Virtually bans forest road construction & reconstruction.
Only essential classified roads (no feeder roads).
Does not recognize temporary roads for timber harvest.
NEW POLICIES/RULES THAT SUPERSEDE EXISTING LOCALLY DEVELOPED FOREST PLANS--RESULTS
National Policy--``one size-fits-all'' mentality, loss of local control.
Economic Impact--not recognized, local economies depend on National Forests.
New Policies/Rules--change established uses, access & activities.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DICKS
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report copy B of the Dicks amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DICKS:
On page 52, after line 15, add the following new section:
SEC. . Any limitation imposed under this Act on funds made available by this Act related to planning and management of national monuments, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan shall not apply to any activity which is otherwise authorized by law.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House yesterday, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which would overcome section 334 and 335 of the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001.
My amendment seeks to overcome the funding limitation imposed in the bill under section 334 and 335 relating to the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, known as ICBEMP, and the design, planning, and management of national monuments.
Both of these provisions are objectionable to the Clinton administration, and the committee has received a letter from the Office of Management and Budget director Jack Lew stating that the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto unless these riders are removed.
Section 334 of the bill would stop the Interior-Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, ICBEMP, from going forward. The author of the provision included report language to the bill language stating concern that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are not in compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act by completing a regulatory flexibility analysis. The administration, on the other hand, believes that such an analysis is not required. This is a major issue in this debate.
Now, I understand that the author of the amendment may have concerns about the agencies complying with all laws, but I have been assured by the administration that they are, in fact, in compliance with all existing Federal laws and, therefore, object to the inclusion of this provision which would basically stop their work on this particular project.
Further, I do not know whether the author of the amendment does or does not support the Columbia Basin Project's goals, but I think it is vitally important to articulate why it should go forward and not be stopped with a rider in this Interior appropriations bill.
The Columbia Basin Project was initiated by President Clinton in 1993 to respond to landscape-scale issues, including forest and rangeland health, the listing of Snake River salmon, bull trout protection, and treaty and trust responsibilities to the Tribes in the area. It also sought to bring more certainty and stability to the communities located in the Columbia River Basin, which were impacted by these events.
What we had before were literally dozens of smaller management plans that only addressed specific areas within the basin. The goal of ICBEMP was to better assemble each individual plan into a more coordinated watershed-based program. ICBEMP has several goals. Among them is to better protect the habitat important to threatened and endangered species and also to provide a long-term plan for mining, grazing, and timber harvest, all of which are still allowed under the project.
It is not a land grab, nor does it take decisions out of the hands of local communities and local management offices. It is an important step to better manage these critical lands, and it has had several years in development and has received extensive public comments and participation.
Section 335 prevents the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture from using any funds for the purpose of designing, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments which were designated since 1999.
This provision attempts to restrict the designation of monuments by the President under the authority of the 1906 Antiquities Act by using a back-door method: funding limitation. A prohibition on spending funds for these monuments would not change their legal status, but it would prevent any ongoing spending within the monument areas as defined by law.
I would say to all of my colleagues who had monuments declared, that the author of the amendment chose not to cover his monument, but he is covering our colleagues' monuments.
The author of the amendment included language in the Interior Appropriations report to accompany the bill which states: ``Nothing in this language prevents either Secretary from managing these Federal lands under their previous management plans.'' But the bill language clearly states that no money shall be expended for the purpose of design, planning, or management of Federal lands as national monuments.
Once the President has acted to designate these lands, they are legally designated and would thus be subject to the spending limitation. All this provision would do is ensure that no Federal dollars by our land and resource management agencies could be spent in these areas .
A monument designation does not lock up these lands. Quite the contrary, monument status does not preclude such activities as grazing or mining.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. DICKS) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. DICKS was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, monument status also involves an extensive community involvement process so that programs can be established for all public uses. Hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing are all allowed in these areas . But they would all be stopped if we could not do necessary wildlife surveys and environmental programs.
This provision would not allow any funds to be spent for law enforcement
[Page: H4501] GPO's PDF
I understand that some of the President's recent designations have been controversial. But he has had, in each instance, the complete authority to act under the jurisdiction of the 1906 Antiquities Act. If the authorizing committees, and I note the presence of the chairman of the authorizing committee, if the authorizing committee of jurisdiction wishes to reexamine the Antiquities Act or wishes to pass legislation to cancel any specific monument designation, then they should do so. But the inclusion of this provision and the other provisions are ill-advised and ensure a veto by the President.
I urge support of my amendment and hope the House agrees that these provisions should not be included in this bill.
AMENDMENT NO. 46 OFFERED BY MR. NETHERCUTT TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DICKS
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the amendment.
The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. NETHERCUTT to the amendment offered by Mr. DICKS:
Strike ``monuments,'' and insert ``monuments or''.
Strike ``, or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan''.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents