Washington, D.C. - President Clinton's directive to lock up more than 40 million acres of federal forests as "roadless" areas came under strong criticism by Members of Congress today at a U.S. House Committee on Resources oversight hearing.

The primary concerns expressed by Members were the adverse effect on the health and condition of national forests, the decreased ability to fight catastrophic fires, the restricted access for hunters, fishermen and recreationists on public lands, and the circumvention of the law by the President.

Scott Schlarbaum, a forest scientist at the University of Tennessee, testified that the President's plan "is a classic example of a centralized federal proclamation that shows little regard for local forestry planning efforts that have been negotiated in good faith." Schlarbaum added: "At stake is the future of a significant portion of the National Forest System. Gifford Pinchot said, 'Fire destroys quickly; trees grow slowly. If often takes a hundred years to make good the damage done by a single day's fire.' "The same can be said of bad policy decisions and law making affecting our natural resources," Schlarbaum said. "If we truly wish to preserve the National Forests for future generations, the deliberations must be made on fact, not emotions or political tradeoffs."

"It is clear that the intent of this proposal is to take certain lands and impose wilderness restrictions on those lands," said U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), the Chairman of the House Resources Committee. "If the President wishes to impose wilderness restrictions on our National Forests, he must, under the law, come to Congress. Only Congress can designate wilderness or impose wilderness restrictions upon National Forests or other federal lands. This is a flagrant violation of law and an abuse of the power given to the President and the Forest Service to regulate the uses of our forest system. "I can think of no clearer case of a decision that is more arbitrary and capricious and without legal authority than this one. In fact, this proposal is not the result of careful scientific study or research."

Hearing co-chairs Rep. James V. Hansen (R-UT) and Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-ID) were also critical of the Clinton-Gore Administration's plans to close the national forests from the American people.

"President Clinton states that the reason we need this proposal is because 'we can never replace what we might destroy if we don't protect these 40 million acres,' said U.S. Rep. Jim Hansen (R-UT), the Chairman of the National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee. "Well, I have a question for the President - from just who, or what, are you trying to protect these lands? These lands are already owned by the federal government and managed by an agency, the Forest Service, that the President controls. So apparently Mr. Clinton is trying to 'protect' these lands from his own Administration. Does this make any sense, or is it just a favor to the extreme environmentalists, with no basis in fact?" Hansen added: "President Clinton's idea of 'protecting' these roadless areas equates to nothing more than eliminating good forest management. By doing so we are not 'protecting' the lands. Rather, by eliminating active management of these forested lands, many of them will burn in future wildfires with devastating consequences. It is evident that President Clinton, by his definition of 'protection,' will create unhealthy forests which are doomed to burn and destroy countless acres of wildlife habitat."

Chenoweth-Hage, the Chairman of the Forest and Forest Health Subcommittee, said: "In one day, the Clinton and Gore team have ordered the Forest Service to lock up at least 25 percent of all the national forest lands to public use. They have locked up 'more than 40 million acres' according to the President on October 13, '50 or 55 million acres' according to George Frampton (the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality) on the same day, and more than 60 million acres according to a document submitted to the Committee on October 25 by the Council on Environmental Quality." Chenoweth-Hage added, "The public cannot be expected to respond to a proposal when the Administration cannot agree on the size of the affected area or even identify the lands affected." U.S. Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck was given 10 days to provide a factual acreage figure and maps to the Committee.

"This year, Nevada experienced one of the worst fire seasons in recent history," said U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV). "We must move forward with good forest management to avoid potential catastrophic fire hazards in the future. Access to roads in our nation's forests is paramount in our efforts to accomplish this task. By barring road travel in our nation's forests, President Clinton will sound the death knell for good forest health and commonsense forest management." Gibbons added, "President Clinton's initiative also destroys the public-private partnership that makes accessibility to our nation's forest so unique. His initiative will effectively lock up our public forests while locking out the American people. I am particularly concerned that our nation's disabled citizens will not have the opportunity to view America's pristine forests without access to safe roads."

U.S. Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY), the Chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, asked Dombeck what role Congress would have under the President's proposal. Dombeck replied that Congress would be limited to using its oversight and appropriations power. Cubin reminded the Chief that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish regulation, not the Executive Branch.

U.S. Rep. Rick Hill (R-MT) reminded Chief Dombeck of a promise Dombeck made in a Resources Committee hearing earlier this year: "If there are further (access) restrictions, they will be made-either at the local level by our forest supervisors . . . or they will be made through acts of Congress," Hill quoted from Dombeck's testimony. Hill said: "The President's announcement is an extension and expansion of the roads moratorium. In fact it is a far more sweeping directive. You promised me that this process would be done at the local level and not here in Washington. What has occurred here is not what you told me would happen. How is this decision compatible with your promise?" Dombeck answered, "Issues evolve over time . . . and I think we look at different issues at different scales."

"The President's proposed restriction actually threatens the integrity of the environment," said U.S. Rep. Schaffer (R-CO). Numerous hearings, involving experts from all sides, have established the fact that active forest management is essential to improving the vitality of our nation's forests. Preventative maintenance and emergency response requires access to fires or diseased areas. This would be severely restricted if this rule is implemented. It is clear the President is recklessly exploiting the nation's remaining forests as a political tool for partisan gain, and unwittingly jeopardizing the health of our National Forest System in the process."

"Why is it so apparent that the President is trying to restrict the public from enjoying public forest land?" asked U.S. Rep. John Peterson (R-PA). "Will outdoor enthusiasts, hikers, campers, and anglers utilize an area with no roads? This proposal would limit usage of the National Forests to a small percentage of the population that actually has the means to reach areas with no roads."

"Clinton has again circumvented Congress to accomplish his extreme environmental agenda," said U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID). "It's important to care for our public lands. Clinton's goal isn't preservation, but rather public exclusion. His announcement creates a 'King's Forest,' where lands are locked up from any public use. Forest management shouldn't mean the public becomes a trespasser,"

"Colorado's forests are under siege by the bark beetle," said U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). "We could lose over 400,000 acres of healthy trees to the bark beetle within the next decade. Regional Forester Lyle Laverty was poised to end this threat with several calculated timber sales and timber removals, but the President's 'Roadless Areas' proposal has restricted Mr. Laverty's options. Mr. President, I ask you to heed to the proposals of America's forest experts and save this valuable resource."

"Time and again during the course of this Administration's stewardship of our federally-controlled lands, we have seen their relentless War on the West," said U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ). "Make no mistake, President Clinton's proposal to create de facto wilderness areas - and that is the hidden agenda beneath this so-called roadless policy - is one of the most egregious, outrageous, and absurd proposals that has emanated from the White House."

For more information, please check the House Committee on Resources Home Page at http://www.house.gov/resources/

Steve.Hansen@mail.house.gov
Committee on Resources
http://www.house.gov/resources/ voice: (202) 225-7749
fax: (202) 226-4631