[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 148 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11997-H11998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




FOREST SERVICE RELEASES PREFERRED PROPOSAL FOR ROADLESS AREA INITIATIVE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have today, 
I would like to talk about what consumer advocates would call a case of 
bait and switch. The shameful deceit of which I speak was made clear on 
November 13, because, on that day, the Clinton administration's Forest 
Service released their, quote-unquote, referred proposal for a roadless 
area initiative that will close off 60 million acres of public land 
from the public itself. As we have learned just recently, the Forest 
Service may actually issue the final version of this plan as early as 
next week.
  This plan bans road construction, timber harvesting, and even road 
reconstruction in these areas. This affects 69,000 acres of the 
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in my district, and, as I said, 
millions of acres all across our Nation.
  It locks away all of this land from economic opportunities as well as 
from the taxpayers who use the land for recreation. I call it a bait 
and switch because, throughout this process, while the administration 
was talking a good game about continued access to the forest during the 
public comment period, they obviously intended all along to institute 
this much more sweeping, much more restrictive proposal after the 
public's opportunity for comment had expired.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, throughout this process, the people of northern 
Wisconsin have been assured and reassured that responsible timber 
harvesting would not be restricted under this plan. Now, the Forest 
Service drops this final proposal on the folks whose livelihoods are at 
stake and, to add insult to injury, offers them no chance whatsoever to 
comment, telling them that they have already had their chance to speak 
out.
  This is an unbelievable act of arrogance by an outgoing 
administration, and it should outrage every Member of this body, no 
matter what their party, no matter how they feel about the issue 
itself. Our forests should not be locked away from the public by 
Washington bureaucrats.
  Keeping our forests open to multiple uses is essential to preserving 
the way of life in my district and in forests all across America. 
Entire communities and their economies rely on this access for their 
very survival. And what is not discussed nearly often enough, keeping 
these areas open to responsible multiple use is essential to preserving 
the forests themselves.
  Let us go back some time, to 1924, when the Wisconsin legislature 
originally decided to release these lands to the Federal Government to 
create the national forests. The Federal Government said explicitly and 
on the public record that it was acquiring these lands to restore them 
to a condition of maximum productivity and to maintain public access. 
That was the reason for taking these forests, to maintain public 
access. But, of course, the new restrictions that I am talking of fly 
in the face of that agreement.
  Obviously, if the Wisconsin legislature, if the Wisconsin citizens 
knew then what we know now, they never would have transferred these 
lands. In fact, some of my constituents are even exploring legal action 
to try to reclaim these lands.
  I am outraged and I am disappointed that the Forest Service has 
brushed aside so cavalierly the economic impact this policy will have 
on communities and citizens all across northern Wisconsin. Perhaps if 
the Forest Service had listened or accepted further comment from the 
people in my district, they would have understood the real impact of 
this policy.
  I am going to do everything I can, and I am sure some of my 
colleagues will follow suit, to make sure that the people in 
communities like those in northern Wisconsin have the chance to 
publicly comment and have their opinions recorded. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, I am going to place these letters that I have right here from 
my constituents into the Congressional Record. These letters are but a 
very small representation, a handful of the hundreds of letters that I 
have received opposing this plan.
  There are comments like this one, from my constituent, Brian 
Swearingen, in Appleton, Wisconsin. He writes, ``While the Forest 
Service suggests that it has the public interest in mind when 
advocating this initiative, little thought appears to have been given 
to the impact this policy will have on Americans who enjoy using our 
country's public lands.''
  I will submit these for the Record. We can only hope that the powers 
that be will take them into account.
                                  Appleton, WI, November 17, 2000.
       Dear Representative Mark Green: As someone who enjoys 
     visiting and using our public lands, I am writing you to 
     express my grave concern over the various policy initiatives 
     undertaken by the Clinton Administration to limit access to 
     public lands. Of particular concern to me is the Roadless 
     initiative sponsored by the U.S. Forest Service.
       While the Forest Service suggests that it has the public 
     interest in mind when advocating this initiative, little 
     thought appears to have been given to the impact this policy 
     will have on Americans who enjoy using our country's public 
     lands. Of particular concern is the fact that senior citizens 
     and those with disabilities will be locked out of our public 
     lands if this initiative becomes effective.
       It is important that the Congress begin to exercise 
     oversight of the Forest Service especially since the agency 
     seems to be forfeiting its responsibility to manage our 
     national forests with a multiple use perspective. I believe 
     that public lands can be utilized and kept environmentally 
     safe all at the same time. Keeping people out of our public 
     lands should not be an acceptable solution.
       The U.S. Forest Service Roadless initiative must be 
     stopped. Please become active on this issue.
           Sincerely,
     Brian Swearingen.
                                  ____



                                         Forest Sawmill, Inc.,

                                    Wabeno, WI, November 28, 2000.
       Dear Representative Mark Green: Thank you for your help in 
     the fight against the Roadless area. Here are some of my 
     thoughts on the subject. First I believe we should be allowed 
     to make public comment on the final plan, since it is so 
     different from what we were being told at many of the 
     meetings. In Mike Dombeck's opening letter he says that he 
     wanted to thank all the people that participated in this rule 
     making. The wealth of insight and experience improved the 
     proposal and the analyses of social, economic, and 
     environmental effects. In reading the summary, I get the 
     feeling that none of our ideas were taken into account and 
     that the meetings were just a smoke screen to make us believe 
     we were getting input.
       In looking at the job loss numbers, I believe they aren't 
     accurate. I feel this because every job lost has a trickle 
     down effect that travels through the whole community and the 
     whole state.
       The summary also states on page S-27 that timber production 
     has been reduced from 12 Billion board feet in 1987 to 3 
     Billion board feet in 1999. This disturbs me because these 
     areas are already greatly effected by the dramatic reduction 
     already put in place through the last 12 years. Many of these 
     areas are mere skeletons of what they were in the times of 
     proper forest management. The western states are fine 
     examples of this. The Forest Service's idea to fix the 
     problem is to throw money at the problem. This is never a way 
     to fix a problem. (The plan is described on page S-10.) The 
     way to fix the problem, is to not create it in the first 
     place. This could be done by properly managing the resources 
     we are letting go to waste.
       In closing I think we should give our forest back to 
     foresters to manage. This means we should have foresters in 
     every level of the Forest Service to help develop plans of 
     action, instead of people with no idea of how properly 
     managing a forest. During a meeting in Crandon, WI, one of 
     the planners said, this was the best way to develop a plan 
     with public input. I feel this job should be given to trained 
     foresters, because to let the public decide is leaving the 
     decision to people with no education on the subject. These 
     people are ruled by whims, not any knowledge on proper 
     management.
           Sincerely,
                                              Edward Piontek, Jr.,
                                                   Vice President.

[[Page H11998]]

     
                                  ____
                                   Pine River Transport, Ltd.,

                                 Long Lake, WI, November 30, 2000.
     Inventoried Roadless Area in Florence County
       The 18,000 acre closure to timber cutting when coupled to 
     all the other forest service set asides is going to further 
     exacerbate the rapid drop in volume harvested from the 
     Nicolet National Forest.
       This in addition to the new Administration Rules on hours 
     and the 95% reduction in the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel 
     will make the continued operation of this trucking company 
     very questionable, as fuel costs will soar.
       Good management of our National Forests can provide all the 
     multiple use benefits that we all value so highly. At the 
     present time ``Mother Nature'' in the form of fire, wind and 
     disease has taken over the management of the forests from the 
     Forest Service.
       It is my understanding that the so called ``Roadless Area'' 
     in Florence County is actually fully roaded and is far from 
     the inaccessible pristine areas referred to by Chief Dombeck.
       We need some sort of common sense restored versus this high 
     handed rule making of the Clinton-Gore administration.
           Sincerely,
     Richard Connor, Jr.
                                  ____

         Florence County Forestry and Parks, Natural Resources 
           Center,
                                  Florence, WI, November 30, 2000.
     To: Representative Mark Green.
     From: David S. Majewski, Administrator, Florence County 
       Forestry & Parks, Florence, Wisconsin.
     Subject: Federal Roadless Initiative.
       As I understand there is a need to comment on the proposed 
     ``Roadless Initiative'' and send the comments to your office.
       The present Administration is trying to ram through an 
     effort on behalf of the ``preservationists'' that will affect 
     many people and communities. Most of the people in this group 
     live far away from the lands that are proposed in this effort 
     and it does not impact their day to day lives or affect their 
     livelihood.
       This proposal is a smokescreen, to create more wilderness 
     in the very near future. It is an attempt to stop timber 
     management in these areas. It will affect the economy of many 
     communities surrounding these National Forests. It will also 
     cause many serious problems for forest protection, which 
     include control of insects, disease, and fire.
       The proposal is not good for the health of the forests, the 
     economy of the areas, or the many recreational opportunities 
     that are presently available when the forests are managed for 
     multiple use. It is also not good stewardship of the land.
       The Public Forests in the Lake States have been managed 
     very conservatively since the early 1900's, the ``Early 
     Logging Era''. Keeping healthy diverse aged forests is better 
     for our environment than over-aged unhealthy forests. The 
     Forests are used by a wide variety of recreation users and 
     the current management provides for a sustained economy for 
     these rural communities and the Nation. The current multiple 
     use management also provides for healthy forests and very 
     good habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. Many of the 
     present wildlife species could not exist without it.
       This initiative will: restrict if not eliminate timber 
     management, cause deterioration of health forests, constrict 
     all recreational opportunities, and inhibit habitat for the 
     majority of the present wildlife. This initiative will not 
     preserve these Forests for future generations but will cause 
     more environmental damage when insects, diseases, and fires 
     rage through these areas.
       Thank you, for the opportunity to provide these comments.
           Sincerely,
     David S. Majewski.
                                  ____



                              Goodman Forest Industries, Ltd.,

                                  Long Lake, WI, December 1, 2000.
     Re Florence County Roadless Area
       I attended a meeting today of the MI-WI Timber Producers 
     Association and found that the 18,000 acre ``Roadless'' area 
     in Florence County has been heavily logged in recent years 
     and is well roaded.
       Who is the Forest Service trying to fool on this? We in the 
     industry believe in ``multiple use'' of our forest lands, 
     however we can not tolerate any more ``lockout'' set asides 
     to occur. Stumpage prices are already skyrocketing because of 
     the fact the Forest Service is not even offering 50% of its 
     operating plan on the Nicolet National Forest.
       Please let me know if you think Congress can intervene. If 
     not, then industry will have no choice but to take the U.S. 
     Forest Service to court to stop this ridiculous set asides 
     formation.
           Sincerely,
     Richard Krawze.
                                  ____

                                   Shawano, WI, November 29, 2000.
       Dear Representative Mark Green: I have been reading, with 
     growing concern, about the Administration's efforts to 
     restrict the use of our public lands and waterways. While I 
     applaud the government's desire to ensure that our natural 
     resources are there for future generations to enjoy, 
     unilaterally cutting off access to these lands is misguided, 
     wrong and in some cases, dangerous.
       For example, if the goal of the Forest Service Roadless 
     Initiative is to preserve these lands for our children and 
     grandchildren to enjoy by not building roads and trails into 
     these areas, how can they be expected to enjoy them when they 
     cannot get to them?
       By definition, the lands and adjacent waterways maintained 
     by the federal land management agencies are public lands. 
     They are maintained with funds provided by tax dollars as 
     well as entrance and user fees. Yet, the public, as well as 
     Congress, governors, local land managers and fire and rescue 
     personnel, were not involved in the creation of these 
     policies. Much of the Forest Service land has been 
     statutorily designated as multiple-use land. By cutting off 
     access to large portions of the land in its care, the Forest 
     Service is defying a decades old congressional mandate.
       Further, this type of thinking, returning our natural areas 
     to what is being described as a pre-European state is very 
     dangerous. As you know, much of our forest land in the 
     western United States is burning out of control (in part as a 
     result of other poorly designed policies). Without roads and 
     firebreaks, the already difficult jobs of firefighters and 
     other rescue personnel would be made even more difficult, if 
     not impossible.
       I do not believe that all public lands should be available 
     for all uses. We all share a responsibility to treat our 
     natural areas carefully and safely. However, if we all work 
     together we can create a policy regarding our public lands 
     and waterways that is fair, reasonable and physically and 
     environmentally safe.
       Please help us achieve this balance for this generation and 
     those to come.
           Sincerely.
                                                       Kevin King.

     

                          ____________________