[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7368-7375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           LAND OF MANY USES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious subject of which I 
want to address to my colleagues, a subject of which many of my 
colleagues in this room, while it is not in their district, they may 
not have the kind of knowledge that I hope to kind of infer into them 
this evening during our discussion.
  What I want to visit about really is specific, as it first comes out 
to the State of Colorado and to the Third Congressional District. Did 
my colleagues know the Third Congressional District is one of the 
largest districts in the United States? That is the district that I 
represent in the United States Congress.
  That District geographically is larger than the State of Florida. It 
is a very unique district. I will kind of point out the district here 
on the map to my left. It is this portion of Colorado. It consumes over 
60 percent of the State of Colorado. In that area, just roughly 
speaking, with the exception of Pikes Peak and part of Estes Park, all 
the other mountains, for the most part, are contained within the Third 
Congressional District of Colorado.
  Now, this district has some very unique features about it. First of 
all, the amount of Federal land ownership within the district, which 
exceeds 22 million acres. This district is also a district which 
supplies 80 percent of the water in the State of Colorado, even though 
80 percent of the population lives outside the Third Congressional 
District.
  This district is also unique. Well, in fact, the entire State of 
Colorado is unique in that Colorado is the only State in the whole 
union, the only State in the whole union where we have no free-flowing 
water that comes into our State for our use. In other words, all of our 
water flows out of the State.
  Now, in this particular district, as my colleagues know, because of 
the amount of Federal land, we have a concept called multiple use. I 
want to give a brief history of multiple use. Although I have talked 
many times from this podium to my colleagues about multiple use, I am 
asking for their patience again this evening, because I want to give a 
little history of multiple use and why in the West we have much 
different circumstances or consequences of decisions in Washington, 
D.C. regarding land than they do in the East.
  Let me put it this way, multiple use is critical for our style of 
life. There are many organizations that are up and down the eastern 
coast around in these areas that really do not understand what it is 
like to live surrounded by Federal lands. So it is very easy for them 
to criticize those of us who live in the West for our lifestyle. It is 
very easy for those individuals to tell us to get off the Federal lands 
as if we had no right to be on those Federal lands.
  Well, let us start with a little history. After I go through the 
history, then I am going to move into the White River National Forest. 
It is one of the most beautiful forests in the world. It is an area 
which I grew up on. I was born and raised in Colorado. My family has 
been there for multiple generations. I can tell my colleagues that 
there are a lot of people that are very proud of the White River 
National Forest. So we will move into the White River National Forest.

[[Page 7369]]

  But, first of all, let us start with a little history on the concept 
of multiple use. In the early days of this country, the United States, 
as a young country, wanted to expand. Obviously the only place to 
expand was west because our people and our country started over here on 
the eastern coast near the Atlantic Ocean.
  But as the United States began to acquire land, for example, through 
purchases like the Louisiana Purchase, they needed to come out here 
into these new lands. Back then, having a deed for property, unlike 
today, today if one has a deed for property, it really means something. 
One can go into the courts and enforce it. In those days, in the 
frontier days and the early days of the settlement of the United States 
as we know it today, having a deed did not mean a whole lot. One had to 
have possession. That is where, for example, the saying possession is 
nine-tenths of the law. That is where that saying came from.
  So the challenge that faced our government in the East was how do we 
encourage our citizens who have the comfort of living in the East to 
become frontiersmen, and I say that generically, to become frontiersmen 
to go West and settle the West and get possession of the lands that we 
want to become later States in the United States.
  So the idea they came up with is, well, let us do the American dream. 
One of the pillars of capitalism, one of the pillars of freedom, one of 
the pillars of which the concept of our government was made, that is 
private property. Let us give them some land. I think it is every 
American's dream to own their own home, to own a piece of property.
  It was many, many years ago, hundreds of years ago when our country 
was formed. So they thought, the leaders at that time, the way to get 
these people to move out here to the West, to settle all of this new 
land, let us give them land. Let us see if they go out there and they 
work on the land, and they show that they really care about the land 
and they devote themselves to the land. Let us give them the land, 
maybe 160 acres, maybe 320 acres. It is called the Homestead Act.
  That worked pretty well, except when one got to the West, to the West 
right here, out here, 160 acres, for example, in Kansas or 160 acres in 
Nebraska or 160 acres in Ohio or 160 acres elsewhere, in Missouri or 
Mississippi, one could support a family, or maybe 320 acres, one could 
support a family off that.
  But when they got into the Rocky Mountains, for example, they found 
out that 160 acres, it will not even feed a cow. So they went back to 
Washington. In Washington, they said, what do we do? We are not getting 
people to go out here and settle in these areas where we want them to 
settle.
  So they thought about it. One of the thoughts, of course, was to let 
us give them an equivalent amount of land. Let us say to them, look, it 
takes 160 acres to support a family in Nebraska. Let us give them 3,000 
acres in the mountains. The leaders thought about it, and they thought, 
politically, we cannot give that much land away because we expect a lot 
of people to go out there.
  So then someone else came up with the idea, well, let us do this. Let 
us go ahead in the West. In the West, let us have the government 
continue to own the land as a formality, and let us let the people use 
the land just like they do in the East; thus, the concept of multiple 
use.
  Now, many of my colleagues who have been in the West and have entered 
a national forest, they may have seen a sign that says, for example, 
``Welcome to the White River National Forest,'' and underneath there 
hung a sign that said ``A land of many uses.'' That is what this really 
represented, a land of many uses.
  Later in my discussions, we will talk about how a land of many uses 
has expanded, how it has expanded to protect the environment, how it 
has expanded much beyond ranching and farming and mining and things 
like that. It has expanded into recreation. It has expanded into 
multiple, multiple uses. In fact, that doctrine has grown unusually.
  Let me tell my colleagues what we have right here, the map that I am 
showing them. This map represents here in the east where most of the 
white spots are, with the exception of the Appalachians here and the 
Everglades down in Florida, there is very little Federal land ownership 
out in the east. These big blops in the West, all of the colors we see, 
that is land owned by the government.
  So at this point, what I want to stress upon my colleagues as I 
address them here on the floor is the difference between land ownership 
by the government in the east, of which it is, for all practical 
purposes, at a minimum, and land ownership in the West which, for all 
practical purposes, is almost total.
  Now, understanding that, when one lives in one part of the country 
where the Federal Government has very little Federal ownership and 
really for development or planning or zoning, one can go to one's local 
city council or one's county governments in the East, compare that 
living style to, in the West where, really, when one wants to have some 
kind of zoning or thing like that, one has to go to the government in 
Washington, D.C., because one is surrounded by government lands.
  Now, let me say that, in these big blops of federally government-
owned land, Federally-owned land, and other government-owned land, 
there are communities out there. There are small towns. I will give my 
colleagues some examples of towns which they will recognize right away: 
Aspen, Colorado; Vail, Colorado; Glenwood Springs, Colorado; Meeker, 
Colorado.
  Now, the reason I am giving my colleagues those communities is I am 
kind of focusing this in on the White River National Forest.

                              {time}  2030

  All of the communities, in fact, all the ski resorts in Colorado, are 
located within the boundaries of the Third Congressional District, 
which I represent. Now, those communities are totally dependent on 
cooperation from the Federal Government. We here in Washington, D.C., 
dictate what those communities, and hundreds of other communities just 
like them, what they get to do. We dictate whether or not they get to 
have power lines to bring power into their communities. We dictate 
whether or not they get to have highways that come into their 
communities. We dictate their water resources.
  In some cases, the Federal Government, under a new policy, is now 
attempting to reverse, turn on its head, or completely ignore the long-
standing doctrine that recognizes State water law and go into States 
like Colorado and say, look, if your water, for example, is stored upon 
Federal land, runs across Federal land or originates on Federal land, 
even though you own it, we are going to confiscate a part of it and we 
are not going to let you have access to it any more. In other words, 
the government has complete control of the life-style in the West.
  In the East, people are generally very free from the government. And 
when I say the East, let us go ahead and draw a boundary here on this 
map. Coming up here from the Canadian border and right down and through 
Colorado, actually going down I-25, half of Colorado has very little 
Federal land ownership in it. Coming down here, up through here, 
through Oklahoma and down right to the border there in Arizona, over in 
this area over here, everything east to the Atlantic Ocean, very little 
government ownership. Everything to the west almost total government 
ownership.
  Well, that leads me into the topic that I want to visit this evening 
on, and that is the White River National Forest. The White River 
National Forest is a huge forest, about 2.7 million acres, 
approximately. One-third of that forest today, one-third of that 
forest, is held in a wilderness area.
  Now, a wilderness is the most restrictive management tool that the 
government uses. It is the tool for management that has the least 
amount of flexibility. I know something about wilderness. I have 
sponsored and carried into law a number of wilderness bills. The White 
River National Forest has amongst the highest percentage of

[[Page 7370]]

wilderness anywhere in the United States, and certainly has the highest 
percentage of wilderness within the State of Colorado.
  Wilderness is very appropriate under very tight circumstances. And 
when people talk about wilderness, obviously, it is a very fuzzy word. 
How many of my colleagues in here do not like the word wilderness? How 
many people have my colleagues ever met, when asked if they like 
wilderness, do they like mothers, do they like ice cream, have ever 
heard them say no? It is kind of like finding someone that is anti-
education. They are not out there. But when we take a look at the legal 
definition of the word wilderness as it applies, for example, to 
Colorado water rights, as it applies to a number of other things, we 
have to be very, very careful about the application of a wilderness 
area.
  I have a bill called the Colorado Canyons Bill, which I intend to 
present to my colleagues here in the next couple of weeks. In that one 
I am proposing 72,000 acres that is in a wilderness study acre to be 
converted to wilderness. But I do that only after very, very careful 
study.
  So we know now that the White River National Forest has many, many 
different communities contained within its boundaries, and within those 
particular boundaries we have one-third of the forest, or about 750,000 
acres of the forest, which are in wilderness as we now speak.
  Now, when we take a look at the White River National Forest, let us 
talk about some other issues. There are issues, like water. What is 
important to remember about the White River National Forest, and let me 
kind of show, it is very hard to define it, but it is an area about 
like this on the map, it would be about the size of a silver dollar 
here in this area, in the White River National Forest we have six 
rivers which start in that forest. Six rivers originate in the White 
River National Forest and a seventh river, the Colorado River, comes 
through the White River National Forest. So water is a critical issue.
  Now, remember, as I spoke earlier in my comments, water in Colorado 
is very unique. We are the only State where our water runs out. We have 
no water that comes in. In the particular area of the State where the 
White River National Forest is, we supply 80 percent of the water for 
Colorado. Eighty percent of the population in Colorado resides outside 
the Third Congressional District, and probably, oh, 95 percent of the 
State's population resides outside the boundaries of the White River 
National Forest.
  Well, what happens, in managing these forests, and now, remember, 
these forests across this country, it is our land, remember the song 
This Is My Land, This Is Your Land, it is our land and it represents 
ownership of all of us in this room. Some of us are obviously much more 
directly impacted by that because we live there. Many of my colleagues 
have never set foot in it. I hope, by the way, some of my colleagues 
all have an opportunity to visit the White River National Forest.
  By the way, if any of my colleagues have ever skied in Colorado, ever 
river-rafted in Colorado, ever mountain biked in Colorado, ever kayaked 
in Colorado, ever snow-boarded in Colorado, or ever camped in Colorado, 
the likelihood is very high that any of those family recreational 
activities that my colleagues have participated in occurred on the 
White River National Forest.
  As I said earlier, these are our forests, they belong to us, and we 
have a fiduciary relationship to the people of this country to run 
those forests. So we have an agency that is in charge of the forests 
called the United States Forest Service. Now, obviously, they are 
subject to review and guidance by the United States Congress. So, 
really, the buck stops here.
  To manage our forests what we have decided to do is to put out what 
we call a forest plan. Now, with today's technology it changes so 
rapidly that a long-term plan has to have flexibility built into it. In 
the older days, for example when the plan that this forest is now 
managed under was first drafted, in about 1984, we did not see that 
kind of rapid change so we could have a 10- or 15-year plan for the 
forest. Well, that plan is about ready for review. It needs to be 
replaced with a new plan. So the U.S. Forest Service has spent a good 
deal of time going out and seeking opinions on what is the best way to 
manage this forest, and that is what we are going to discuss tonight.
  Now, I should tell my colleagues that I believe very strongly in a 
quote by Theodore Roosevelt when it comes to these forests, and I ask 
that my colleagues listen to the placement of the words, because I 
think it is very appropriate as it relates to what we are speaking of. 
By Theodore Roosevelt: ``I recognize the right and the duty of this 
generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land, but I 
do not recognize the right to waste them or to rob by wasteful use the 
generations that come after us.''
  When the forest issued its plan, I think, frankly, they did a pretty 
good job in solicitation of opinions. And I can tell my colleagues that 
a lady by the name of Martha Kattrell, Lyle Laverty at the U.S. Forest 
Service, and a number of other people down there really have put some 
hard work in this and I wanted to recognize them this evening. That 
does not mean I agree with them. I will cover a number of different 
subjects of which I do think we have agreement on, but I will cover 
some subjects, specifically water, of which we have drawn the line in 
the sand.
  Let me go back to what they have done. The Forest Service has come up 
with a recommended plan. When that plan came out, I objected to it 
quite strenuously. I objected to it on a number of different counts, 
the first and foremost of which is water.
  Now, look, in Colorado we have to stand up strong for our water. 
There are a lot of my colleagues in this room that do not live within 
the boundaries of Colorado but who depend on Colorado water and are 
very anxious to get as much of that water as they can. If I lived in 
their States, I would want as much Colorado water as I could get too. 
By the way, it is the best water in the country: Rocky Mountain spring 
water, Coors beer, et cetera, et cetera. But I do not live in any other 
state, I live in the State of Colorado, and that is an asset of which 
Colorado has and places great value. I think my colleagues place great 
value on it too.
  But I think we have to be very fair in how we deal with water, and 
the White River National Forest plan, the plan that the Forest Service 
has come out with, in my opinion, ignores, preempts, or bypasses 
Colorado water law. Now, Colorado water law is exactly the law that 
every other citizen in the State of Colorado must live by. There are no 
other citizens in Colorado that get exempted from Colorado water law. 
There are no kings, no queens, no special privileged class that gets to 
treat water as it wants without falling under Colorado water law.
  Now, the Federal Government wants to come in and create a special 
class. The Federal Government wants to come in, and by the way this is 
above the level of Martha Laverty, this is from Washington, D.C., they 
want to come into Colorado and create a very privileged class. It is 
called the Federal Government. It is called the Washington, D.C. 
bureaucracy of the United States Government. They want to be treated 
differently than anybody else in the State of Colorado when it comes to 
water. And guess why? Because they want our water in Colorado. And, 
frankly, it has an impact on the water that some of my colleagues use 
that comes out of the State of Colorado.
  So we had a disagreement on water. We will cover that even further as 
I go into my comments. But what did I see as another fallacy in the 
plan? I saw water as a fallacy. What other fallacy did I see in the 
plan? Really, as I said, they gathered a lot of good comments, but what 
I think they did in error is they took these good comments and they 
spread them over several different plans. They did not just pick one 
plan. Although they came up with a suggested plan, in their review they 
reviewed a number of what they call alternatives. So they had like six 
or seven alternatives and they came out

[[Page 7371]]

with their recommended alternative or recommended plan.
  Well, in each of these plans they put some pretty good 
recommendations, but they spread them out when they only got to pick 
one. I was critical of that. I thought we could do a better job. That 
is not to be adversarial to the U.S. Forest Service. Although let me 
make it very clear, let me make it very clear, that my position with 
the United States Government is adversarial when it comes to Colorado 
water. There should be no doubt about that. I am on one side of the 
line on Colorado water and the United States Government is on the other 
side of the line.
  But that said, with the exception of water, I found my relationship, 
my working relationship with the U.S. Forest Service on the White River 
National Forest very constructive. But I was critical of the way they 
came out with their plan, so I decided to do what no other Congressman 
in the history of the United States Congress has done, what no other 
U.S. Senator has done in the history of the U.S. Senate, and that is, 
in essence, draft the U.S. Forest Service's forest plan for them.
  Now, first of all, I had to figure out what was my theme. What did I 
really want to see in the White River National Forest. Remember that 
this forest has thousands, tens of thousands of direct jobs related to 
recreation. The world class ski resorts are located in this forest. And 
by the way, I do not see anything inherently evil with skiing. I do not 
see anything inherently evil with snow-boarding. I do not see anything 
inherently evil with riding a mountain bike. I do not see anything 
inherently evil with camping, or with kayaking, or with riding an ATV. 
Where the inherent evil is if we abuse the resource which we are 
utilizing for family recreation. There I see inherent evils, and we 
needed to address that in our forest plan.
  So I titled my forest plan, Forest Rest and Forest Use. Again, Forest 
Rest and Forest Use. That was kind of the boundary within which I 
wanted to contain or to construct something that I think would be a 
positive addition to what the United States Forest Service came out 
with in regards to their plan. And I will give my colleagues a little 
bit of my own background.
  I was born and raised in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. My family had 
been there for a long time. My family has been in the district for many 
generations. I had my first date on the White River National Forest. 
Now, do not worry, it was not that exciting. I had my first fishing 
trip in the White River National Forest. I have had a lot of 
experiences, hiking, and I have learned lots of things about the 
environment, about wildlife in the White River National Forest. I have 
a deep appreciation for that forest, and I think I know that forest as 
well as any layperson.
  Now, my colleagues may notice that I used the word layperson, because 
there are people who have far more expertise on that forest than do I. 
And in order to draft a plan that I thought was a balanced plan, that 
really fell within the boundaries of giving the forest a rest and using 
the forest in a proper way, in order to do that, I felt I needed to 
have an expert on board. I was very fortunate. Without qualification, 
one of the top experts in the United States of America, specifically on 
the White River National Forest, is a gentleman named Richard Woodrow. 
His nickname, by which most people know him, is Woody. Seems 
appropriate for this forest. Although I should tell my colleagues that 
this forest is not a timber forest, just so we know that up front.

                              {time}  2045

  But Woody supervised that forest. Woody drafted the last forest plan. 
The forest plan that we are currently under right now was drafted by 
Woody in 1984. Woody was the deputy secretary or the deputy assistant 
under the Forest Service for all wilderness and all recreation. There 
is no question that he is qualified.
  I can tell my colleagues that some special interest groups decided 
they were going to criticize me before they even read what I had to 
say. But during all this criticism, not one of them criticized the 
credibility, the integrity, the knowledge, the instinct, or the hands-
in-the-dirt concept of Richard Woodrow. That man is a scholar when it 
comes to the White River National Forest.
  I went to him and I said, Woody, would you help me draft a plan for 
the White River National Forest which could be seen as a constructive 
addition to what the Forest Service is attempting to do? He said yes. 
But he said, yes, with some conditions. Number one, it had to be 
balanced. Number two, I had to be willing to stand up for forest 
health.
  Now, it is very easy in that forest for somebody to say, no timber 
cutting. But if you know about management of wildlife, if you know 
about the health of a forest, you know that you have to harvest some 
timber. That is not a timber harvest forest. This is not where 
companies go to get timber. Companies come in there at our request to 
take some out. In the last 100 years, less than four percent or so of 
the forest has ever been timbered.
  But he had said, look, there is going to be pressure on you to back 
down on this. You have to stand with me on forest health. You have to 
stand with me on balance. I said, I am in. Let us go together. Let us 
put together a team.
  The next thing we decided we had to do, well, what should our process 
be? I felt very strongly that the process to construct this plan needed 
to be built at the local level.
  We have nine counties involved in the White River National Forest. 
Now, these are large counties by eastern standards. But we decided that 
five of those counties have much more impact by the White River 
National Forest. So we decided that we would go to each of these 
counties and we wanted to build this plan from the local level up. Now, 
remember, I had a very short window of opportunity to do this.
  This report, and this is a copy of it right here, it is about 160 
pages without the maps, it is highly technical. Highly technical. I had 
less than 5 months to go out, do the research, visit with the people, 
get the input, send the input back, have it back and revise it, send it 
back, revise it, send it back, get it ready for final print, and meet 
the deadline of May 9, which is today. We had to meet today's deadline, 
and we did meet that deadline. But I had a very short window of 
opportunity, which means I had to get some volunteers out there to help 
me out.
  Those volunteers were the counties. We went to county commissioners. 
We went to county planners. We went to user groups. And we went to all 
user groups. We went to Colorado Ski Company. We went to Fat Tire, the 
mountain bikers. We went to the wildlife division, natural resources. 
They provided our expertise for Division of Wildlife. We went for water 
expertise. Even though I think I have a lot of background in water, we 
went to the Colorado Conservation Board. We went to the Colorado River 
District Board.
  We sat down with all of these different groups and we said, provide 
us with expertise on what we ought to do with the White River National 
Forest.
  Now, I can tell my colleagues, one of the criticisms we got out there 
was from some of the more special interest environmental groups. And by 
the way, they do not own the term ``environmental.'' I think everybody 
in this room is environmental. Certainly the people I live around care 
about their environment.
  But they said, look, Scott McInnis never sat down with us eye to eye. 
Well, that is true but it is a kind of play on words. They had 
submitted their own alternative.
  Unfortunately, the Forest Service in doing its alternative had 
drafted all of their alternatives in-house except for one. They allowed 
one out-of-house, so to speak, alternative to be submitted for 
consideration of their plan. And that was drafted by groups like the 
Aspen Wilderness Society, Sierra Club. I think some others might have 
been involved in that.
  That plan, by the way, was called Plan I. That plan was very well-
drafted. It was well-worded. It was easy to understand. I did not agree 
with all of it. Although I did agree with some of it. In fact, I 
adopted some of it in my own alternative right here. But that document 
was right in front of me.

[[Page 7372]]

  So, instead, because of the short window of opportunity I had to 
complete all of this work, and it really was a huge task to complete, 
instead of meeting with those different groups, I had their plan 
written. We went through their plan line by line. We went through their 
recommendations recommendation by recommendation. Some we rejected.
  For example, when it comes to water, let me tell you, the national 
Sierra Club and some of these other organizations do not have 
Colorado's water in mind from a perspective of the need of Colorado 
people. So we disagreed on water. There were areas of the so-called 
environmental plan, Plan I, that I felt were worthy.
  So we sat down and looked at that. We reached out. We reached out 
into the community. Because I felt that we had to go out there and 
figure out what uses we could manage, how could we manage those uses, 
what areas need special management tools, whether it is a designation 
of a wilderness area, whether it is an intermix area, whether it is a 
special interest area. But in order to do that, I felt local input was 
critical.
  Now, some people will say, well, gosh, Scott never visited with me. I 
am a hiker. I hike up on the White River National Forest. Look, we 
could not meet with everybody, but we did the best we could with the 
resources that we had. I think we have come up with an excellent 
product. In fact, I think some of the critical reviews of it have been 
pretty good.
  Let us talk a little more. That is the process. So we wanted to 
gather at the local level, which meant we processed it up. And then our 
job really was kind of like an architect or like a general contractor. 
We subcontracted to each county. Garfield County we kind of 
subcontracted. Okay, Garfield, tell us where you would like wilderness 
areas. Tell us what kinds of uses you think are appropriate in your 
county on the forest. Tell us what you are dependent upon as far as 
highways.
  Every power line into Glenwood Springs, every natural gas line, every 
highway, all of their water, all of their TV towers, all of their radio 
towers, all of their cellular towers. In most of the communities in the 
forest, they are all dependent on the forest allowing them to do that.
  So we went to each county like a subcontractor and we said, all 
right, give us a bid, so to speak. Tell us what you can do with the 
project as a whole. I will act, with the assistance of Richard Woodrow 
and a number of other people, including my staff, by the way, who, if I 
could pin five stars on them, I would, they did a wonderful, wonderful 
job in this, but I wanted to submit this; and then we, as the general 
contractor, would try and mold the project, try to flow chart the 
project so that we could come out with a plan, which we did.
  That was our mission. That was the process.
  Now, in doing that, we covered a number of areas. Let me say at the 
very beginning there was one area, I have mentioned it several times, I 
will mention it again, there was one area of which I said was non-
negotiable, non-negotiable. I really was not interested in negotiating 
with anybody on that particular subject. And that is Colorado water.
  The water of Colorado should be administered by the laws of Colorado. 
The water of Colorado belongs to all of the people of Colorado. And in 
order to adjudicate that water, we have laws that are time tested, 
court tested, and put-on-the-ground tested, so to speak.
  Colorado has management of its water. We have some of the best in-
stream water flows in the Nation. We have lots of protection for our 
streams. We have gone through lots and lots of controversy on our 
water. Our water law is true and tested and it is non-negotiable as far 
as allowing an exemption to it.
  What the Federal Government wants is an exemption. They want to be 
able to come in and preempt, saying, hey, we are the Federal 
Government. We are bigger than you. We are from Washington, D.C. We 
will get our way in Colorado. We do not care what your Colorado water 
law says.
  I reject that on its face. That was non-negotiable. But that is about 
the only point, my colleagues, about the only point that I started out 
with as non-negotiable. Everything else I felt was negotiable so that 
we could come up with the best plan for forest rest and forest use.
  My belief is that we have a right to use it but we have no right to 
abuse it. How do we siphon out the abuse? How do we manage it without 
eliminating it?
  Now let talk just for a moment about the recommendation that the 
Forest Service made. Their recommendation, in essence, said that the 
historical use of this forest, which one-third, as I told you, has been 
used for wilderness, two-thirds of it has been predominantly utilized 
for recreation, they turned that on its head. They said, from now on, 
we are going to give priority to biological and ecological 
considerations.
  Well, I do not think this is a zero-sum game. I do not think it is 
either or. Let me tell you, that forest really is a family recreation 
forest. I think we can have family recreation and I think we can give 
priorities, customize priorities, to our biological and ecological 
concerns that we have out there. But I do not think that we have one at 
the total elimination of the other.
  That is where my plan differs from the Forest Service. I have drafted 
a plan that protects wilderness areas. I have drafted a plan that goes 
in and even customizes to a greater extent what we do with our 
wildlife, how we protect our wildlife.
  For example, from the Forest Service, they have got a lot of elk and 
deer habitat in the summer. In the summer in Colorado, the elk and deer 
have plenty to eat. It is in the winter. We have some pretty tough 
winters out there. We have deep snow. We shifted the elk habitat from 
the summer to the winter.
  On recreation, we did not go in and say no more consideration for 
expansion or growth in ski areas. Whoever imagined, for example, 
snowboards 15 years ago when this plan was drafted? We went in and 
said, look, recreation is compatible with the management of the forest 
if it is correctly monitored, if it is correctly reviewed before it is 
allowed to be initiated on the forest, and if it is correctly managed. 
If it meets those terms, then recreation should have a place on that 
forest.
  That is exactly what we did, for example, with ski areas. Now, they 
will make it sound like there is some outrageous thing going on with 
ski areas. Not at all. We do not waive one NEPA review. We do not waive 
any other type of environmental permit. We do not waive any type of 
environmental study at all. We do not waive any public meetings.
  All we said is that what is allowed today for ski area expansion is 
too much. It needs to be reduced. But we are not going to eliminate it. 
We are going to allow for consideration, only for consideration. We do 
not automatically grant it. We do not say there is any kind of special 
privilege. We just say there ought to be consideration.
  We went back on wildlife management and we went to our experts, like 
the Division of Wildlife, and we asked them for their expertise. We did 
a lot of things with wildlife we are proud about, including even the 
utilization of trails and trails that would help the management of 
wildlife.
  Wildlife, if my colleagues could hear Woody talk about it, Richard 
Woodrow, if they could hear him talk about it, he talks about how 
certain ages of the forest are more conducive to certain wildlife. That 
is why in one area of the forest we may want to have a burn or we may 
want to do some timber for beetle kill, because elk and deer love where 
we have had a controlled burn. They love to come in and graze on that a 
year or two later. We need to know how these all connect together. We 
had the expertise on board with Wildlife to figure out how this 
connection is made.
  Let me say on travel management, as I mentioned, this is a family 
recreation forest. And what has happened in Colorado, many of our 
constituents who have money have discovered Colorado and they are out 
there buying the land.
  When I grew up, we really got permission to go really anywhere we

[[Page 7373]]

wanted. We could walk across fields. We could go hunting and fishing 
and wildlife watching. There were a lot of different things we could 
do.
  Well, today what we have seen, and I do not complain about it, I 
mean, they have the right to buy property, people have come in and 
purchased the property and they have put up ``no trespassing'' signs.
  What that means is that the White River National Forest has become 
even more of a common-man forest. This is where the common person gets 
to recreate.
  Now, there are a lot of elitists who have never set foot in that 
forest. There are a lot of elitists who do not depend on family 
recreation in that forest. There are a lot of elitists who go into that 
forest for a once-a-year recreational experience and then they are out 
of it.

                              {time}  2100

  This is elitists, they are saying, hey, wipe this recreation out. I 
have got a lot of families out there in Colorado that camp every 
weekend, that go fishing, that go river rafting. They are younger kids, 
even people my age. My knees will not hold out, but they go 
snowboarding. It is a common person's forest. And recreation is not 
inherently evil if properly managed. That is what my plan does. My plan 
properly manages what we call travel management. We have loop trails. 
We worry about people leaving the trail. In fact, what my plan calls 
for, for summer motorized use, for some use, you cannot leave a 
designated trail. Right now you can actually in a lot of different 
places, you start wherever you want, take any kind of apparatus you 
want, whether it is a motorcycle or a mountain bike or a horse, start 
anywhere you want and make your own path in the forest. Those days are 
gone. We are not going to let you make a path anywhere you want in the 
forest. We are going to make the paths, and you are going to follow the 
rules on them but those paths are going to be a great experience for 
you.
  For example, one of the problems we have had with trails is that they 
go one way. When you get to the end of them, you have got to turn 
around and come back. People tend to get bored so they tend to leave 
the trail. We loop some trails. We don't build any new roads to loop 
the trails, by the way. We find a trail here, find a trail here, find a 
connection with an old mining road, we loop them so they are not coming 
back the same direction. So the incentive to leave the trail is not 
there.
  We are putting in under my plan a new program called Forest Watch, 
kind of like Crime Watchers, kind of like Wildlife Watch. What we do is 
we want people to report people that are abusing the forest. If 
somebody is abusing the forest, get them the hell off it. Get them off 
that forest. Nobody in Colorado wants people that abuse the forest up 
there. The people of Colorado recognize the privilege, and it is a 
privilege, to use that forest. There are always going to be people that 
abuse the privileges. We have people within the great halls of Congress 
who abuse their privileges. Get them out. Get them off the forest. That 
is what our Forest Watch will do.
  We will have a 1-800 number. I noticed the criticism, that it has to 
be within the Forest Service budget. Where else are you going to get 
it? We are not asking people to insert a quarter or 35 cents in the 
telephone. We should provide that program. We also put together what we 
call our Youth Conservation Corps. We have a county, Eagle County, we 
have had great commissioners, by the way, who have worked with this. 
But out of Eagle County the commissioners are saying we have got a lot 
of great young people in our county. They want to get involved. They 
are wildlife oriented. They are outdoor oriented. If we put up money to 
help them maintain trails, would the Federal Government match it? We 
call it the Youth Conservation Corps. We get them outdoor experience at 
a young age and let us make that experience one where they are up 
maintaining trails, where they are helping to help preserve the beauty 
we have on the White River National Forest. That is an idea contained 
within my plan. It is called the Youth Conservation Corps.
  Our scenic byways. We do special scenic byways. The more scenic we 
can make our byways, the less inclined people are to leave the byways. 
Think about it. When we manage people on the forest, some people, some 
in my opinion elitists would say get them off the forest. I take a much 
more moderate position. Manage the forest. The way you manage it is you 
try and think about it. Okay, for example, loop the trail. For example, 
scenic byways. The more attractive we can make the byway, the less 
likely somebody is going to leave it. That is a clever way of 
management.
  We have an area called Camp Hale. Bob Dole, the dear colleague of all 
of ours who was in the 10th Mountain Division, you have heard a lot 
about that, Camp Hale is where they did their training. Right now that 
area is overused. Some would suggest we shut it down. Some would 
suggest get the people off it. Most of those suggestions, by the way, 
come from people outside of the area. My position is do not shut them 
out. Manage it. Let us put in an interest center. Let us have 
management of that. Let us have people come in, just like our rivers, 
we have to manage those. We can do that. They can come in and get 
information. Let us help make their experience good but let us make the 
experience on the forest good for the forest as well.
  On wilderness, wilderness is important. We did not just go out though 
and paint a blanket brush of wilderness. We went to the counties and 
said, tell us where you think wilderness is appropriate. Just because 
an area is not in wilderness does not mean that it does not receive 
protection. There is an entire spectrum. If you were to draw a 
spectrum, there are all kinds of tools. You can manage a forest or 
government land as a park, as a monument, as a special interest area. 
There are 100 different tools. The most extreme management tool is 
wilderness. But if you do not put something in wilderness, it does not 
mean that it is not protected or it is not managed. In fact, there are 
100 different or more tools to manage that, to help control it to 
protect the resource.
  That is what we do. We go and say, is wilderness the most appropriate 
way to manage it? If it is, it is in this plan. It is in this plan. We 
have good wilderness designation in that plan. I have good wilderness 
designation on my Colorado Canyons bill.
  We talk about grazing. Grazing is a privilege on the forest we want 
to protect. Why? Remember earlier I said that a number of our 
constituents are coming out to Colorado and they are buying up the 
land? Ranching is a tough business. What we are seeing is people are 
coming in and making ranching not as viable as it used to be, because 
they buy the land for subdivisions. They buy the land to build huge 
mansions on it. My point is this. Let us try and keep these ranches in 
business. These ranches and farms, let us keep them in business. But 
one of the ways we can help keep them in business is supplement their 
private property with grazing rights, properly managed grazing rights.
  My plan goes in where there are vacant allotments and it does not 
automatically close all those allotments as has been recommended. My 
plan goes in and says, wait a minute. We sat down with the ranching 
community and the farm community. We say, which allotments really will 
you not use, let us close those, that is an easy decision. Which 
allotments are really necessary to keep the farm, the ranching 
community viable so that we do not have our ranches turning into 
subdivisions? We do not want them out there, those subdivisions. 
Obviously we all want to have a home. But you know what I am talking 
about. That is why grazing is important. Grazing protects open space. 
We want open space properly allocated. My plan does that. This plan 
takes care of that. It protects those grazing rights.
  Recreation, I have talked about it. As I said earlier, think about 
it. It is not inherently evil to go out and recreate. Here in the East, 
do not forget in the East you can recreate, you can go out and recreate 
all over the place. In

[[Page 7374]]

the West we are very limited. We have to recreate on government land. 
Look at Alaska. Ninety-six, 97 percent of the whole State is owned by 
the government. We have a right for recreation just like you do. My 
family did not go to the children's museum. We did not go to the zoo. I 
never saw a zoo until I was in my late teens. We went out into the 
mountains. That was our family recreation. We had that privilege. That 
privilege has not been abused to the extent that it should be 
eliminated. But it has been abused to the extent that it should be 
managed, and that is what we do in this plan. This McInnis plan, Mr. 
Speaker, manages that recreational use.
  Let me just real quickly show you some quick differences between what 
is currently allowed. Here is a prescription, that is the use, this is 
the existing plan. This is how the forest is managed today. That is 
what is in existence right now. This is my blended alternative. That is 
my plan. Some people have called it the McPlan, some people have called 
it the McInnis plan. We call it the blended alternative. Let us talk 
about recommended wilderness. In today's existing plan, the plan of 
which the current forest is managed, it has zero acres recommended for 
wilderness. We come in with 16,000 acres. Those 16,000 acres are custom 
selected. We did not just go out and say here is a good area for 
wilderness, let us put one here and one there. We went out and studied 
it. We had the experts.
  This plan does a good job. Back country recreation nonmotorized, 
which means you cannot use an ATV or a Jeep or four-wheel drive. Under 
the existing plan, they have a plan for 80,700 acres of that. We up 
that to 92,730 acres. Research, natural areas. They have 300 acres 
planned for that, where you do research on the natural area, just as 
the words describe it. We think that needs to be dramatically 
increased. We jump up 300 to 11,317. Special interest areas, from zero 
acres, we go 1,741. That would be an example of Camp Hale. Back country 
recreation year round motorized. Look at this number. They allow under 
today's management plan 170,000 acres. We cut it down to 30,000 acres. 
What the Forest Service did is cut it down to 4,000 acres, from 170,000 
to 4,000. We said, look, 170,000, with today's kind of growth and use 
of the forest is too much. It needs a dramatic cutback. But not 
elimination. It needs management. We prefer management over 
elimination. That is why we come up with 30,357 acres.
  Back country recreation, nonmotorized with winter motorized, snow 
machine or so on, 100,000 acres today. We reduce that by 40,000 acres, 
by 40 percent, is our reduction. Scenic byways, scenic areas, vistas or 
travel corridors, zero acres, we increase it to 20,000 acres. Forested 
flora and fauna habitat, they have 150,000 acres for this habitat 
management, 150,000. We move it to 518,000 acres. Deer and elk winter 
habitat, they have 134,000 acres under today's plan, we move it to 
190,000 acres. Bighorn sheep habitat, 7,000 acres to 23,000 acres. We 
depended very heavily on our expertise from the wildlife management to 
help us plan that. The elk habitat, 16,000 acres, we move it to 70,000 
acres, from 16,000 to 70,000. By the way, my district has the largest 
elk populations anywhere in the world. The intermix, which is very 
important, from zero acres to 12,000. And ski-based resorts, existing 
and potential, they have it so you could expand to 70,602 acres outside 
its current permit. We call for 58,198 acres, just for consideration. 
Remember, that is not automatic at all. That has to go through a review 
that is stringent, and I think it should be stringent, and it has lots 
of permits that are required. I agree with that.
  So when we take a look at what we have done compared to what the way 
it is being managed today, we think it is a significant moderation. 
Now, there were some plans, for example, there was one plan on one end 
that would allow you to have a free-for-all in the forest. Come on, 
give me a break. Those days are gone. That forest belongs to us. We 
have to manage it. We intend to manage it. My blended plan does manage 
it. It does manage it. Let me say to you that there is a plan on the 
other side that says, hey, the best way to protect the forest in 
essence, eliminate the recreation, let us go toward our goal of 
eliminating multiple use and let us really change the priorities of the 
forest. Instead of having the biological and ecological concerns 
working in concert, working together, working alongside with recreation 
and multiple use concepts, let us just give them the priority. Let us 
take the historical use and bump it down, not equal, which my plan 
does. It says let us give a priority over here. That is that extreme 
side.
  So I can tell you, my plan, which is, as I said, the first in the 
history of Congress to be put forward by a Congressman, my plan is 
going to have about 15 percent, 10 percent maybe on this side that are 
not going to buy into it, that thinks it is outrageous, and 10 percent 
on the special interest environmentalist side. You can tell by the 
letters to the editor that that side right there, on both sides, they 
are angry. But in the middle, in the middle that 70 percent, those 
people that think that we can moderate the uses of the forest, that we 
can protect the forest and that we can give the forest rest and forest 
use.
  Let me go very quickly over a couple of letters to the editor that I 
think are important to cover. I have got one letter from a Gay Moore. I 
hope to call Gay. Gay says, ``According to Ben Nighthorse Campbell and 
Scott McInnis, supporters of Alternative D are not local people but 
outsiders.'' Let me correct that to the writer, one of my constituents. 
I am talking to my colleagues but let me say to you, we did not say 
that anybody that disagrees with us were outsiders. We did not say that 
at all. We did say, however, you ought to give some weight of opinion 
to the people who make their living on the forest, who are surrounded 
by the forest, who enjoy the forest for its beauty, who wildlife manage 
in the forest, whose water and power comes off the forest, whose 
natural gas comes off the forest. The people that mountain bike, the 
people that raft, the people that snowboard, the people that ski, those 
are the people whose opinions we ought to look at. We never once said 
that if you objected to it, you are an outsider.
  The writer goes on to say, ``I was brought up to be a responsible 
forest user. Pack your trash, don't drive off the road.'' You are 
absolutely correct. That is what we are trying to do. My plan says, let 
us manage it, let us not eliminate it. Let us in appropriate spots give 
forest rest and in appropriate spots give forest use. Let us make sure 
people understand they have a privilege to use the forest but they have 
no right to abuse the forest. Let us take the people that abuse the 
forest and kick them off the land. Let us do that. We agree.
  ``Treat the land with loving care.'' Absolutely. You are right. 
``Because without it you will not survive.'' Again, you are absolutely 
right.
  ``When the forest is destroyed by unchecked use of any kind, then the 
jobs you all seem so worried about are also gone.'' I know that.

                              {time}  2115

  ``You are right, and that is exactly what this plan takes into 
consideration.
  ``We move on from there very quickly. The McGinnis plan gives 
support. I am writing to voice my opinion. I am not writing on behalf 
of business, the motor heads or the environmental heads. I am writing 
because I have a passion generated by the forest.''
  She talks about this person, this Dendy Heisel. She talks about those 
who depend on their livelihood, our recreation, promotion or 
recreational opportunities, yet promoting our environmental protection. 
This is a balanced person, this is a balanced plan. That is what this 
does.
  Here is an article of my opinions submitted to the Glenwood Post, 
Blended Alternative Strikes a Balance. ``Let me say that in the final 
analysis, as I am writing here, my locally-driven alternative,'' this 
right here, ``is balanced and eminently fair. It is a plan that 
achieves the twin objectives of preserving the forests' natural 
splendor.

[[Page 7375]]

We protect the forests' natural splendor while, at the same time, 
protecting the privilege of the people to enjoy it.''
  I think that is very important. The White River National Forest is a 
diamond, but it is not a diamond that should be locked in a safe where 
nobody can ever see it. It is not a diamond that should never be 
allowed to be worn in the public, but it is a diamond that when it is 
worn in the public or when it is seen or observed by the public, that 
it deserves protection. We manage how we bring that diamond out of the 
safe, so that we can preserve that diamond for future generations.
  Again I say, and in my concluding remarks, I say, we have put a lot 
of intense work into this plan. This was not just some song and dance, 
although there is a lot of song and dance going on out there. We had a 
lot of people, Richard Woodrow, lots of different people, my staff out 
there, even my wife, a lot of different people put time into this.
  We put a good work product out. We think it is constructive, not 
adversarial to the Forest Service, except in the case of water, but 
otherwise, very constructive. We think the use of this plan and some of 
the recommendations should be put into the recipe so that we can take 
the diamond and protect it and manage it when it needs to be managed 
and protected; put it in a safe at night, but during the day, bring it 
out so somebody can see it. We can save it for the next generation, by 
giving it proper diamond rest or forest rest, but we can also enjoy it 
today by bringing it out of the safe and letting people see it, letting 
people touch it, letting people wear it.
  The key, again, and in conclusion, the critical issue here is not 
elimination; the critical issue is management. We all have a right to 
use and enjoy the forest. We have no right to abuse the forest.

                          ____________________