[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[House]
[Page 1321]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               OPPOSE UNILATERAL CLOSURE OF PUBLIC LANDS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Bill Clinton 
announced plans to create a monument in the Sequoia National Forest. 
Not in Sequoia National Park, mind you, but Sequoia National Forest. It 
will be 400,000 acres, almost 625 square miles.
  The 19th District of California is my home. It encompasses four 
counties, Mariposa, Madera, Fresno, and Tulare. The people of my 
district share their home with three national forests and two national 
parks. That makes my district over 85 percent federally owned, one of 
the highest ratios in the country.
  Make no mistake, we are proud of our public lands. Yosemite and 
Sequoia National Parks are crown jewels. The old growth trees that are 
there inspire majestic awe. The people of my home love and respect the 
environment.
  But, Mr. Speaker, this designation is not about protecting the 
environment and it is not about protecting giant sequoias. Nobody is 
logging these trees. The sequoia groves have been off limits for years. 
This designation is all about politics. It is a campaign looking for a 
press release.
  It seems our President will say just about anything to prolong his 
rule. Today he will close down the Sequoia National Forest for some 
good press, and tomorrow it will be someplace else. What is next? When 
a government can close off public lands, on a whim, without asking for 
public comment, they are not really public lands any more.
  Mr. Speaker, how can we allow a President to close access to public 
lands the size of Rhode Island without asking permission from the 
people who own them?
  Today I am introducing a resolution. It requests that the President 
tell us what he plans to do with the rest of our public lands before 
election day. He has, so far, steadfastly refused to answer this 
question. It requests that the President include real public 
participation as he moves forward with the Sequoia Monument. He needs 
to talk to people who live there, not just people in Washington.
  We should oppose this kind of unilateral closure of public lands, if 
not for the people in my district or in your district, but then for the 
sake of our democracy. It seems we need an administration that 
remembers that we do live in a democracy.

                          ____________________