[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 13299-13300]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL FORESTS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 28, 2000

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Matt Bennett, who is a very good friend of 
mine, wrote an editorial today in the Knoxville News-Sentinel about the 
management of our national forests.
  This Administration has proposed a plan to manage our national 
forests which many people believe could actually end up harming our 
forests by preventing access to areas in danger of fire. I agree that 
we should be preserving our existing wilderness areas and national 
parks. However, the federal government already owns 30 percent of all 
the land in the U.S. If we keep locking up more and more land, we will 
just end up hurting the middle- and lower-income families by driving up 
the cost of forest products.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that Mr. Bennett's column does an excellent 
job describing the dangers of this proposal put forth by the 
Administration. I have included a copy of the editorial that appears in 
today's edition of the Knoxville News-Sentinel and would like to call 
it to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the 
Congressional Record.

           [From the Knoxville News-Sentinel, June 28, 2000]

     President's Roadless Plan Too Confining For Future Generations

                           (By Matt Bennett)

       In the legal parlance of estate planning, the term ``dead-
     hand control'' refers to one generation's attempt to control 
     the future of another from the grave. For the obvious reason 
     that we can never know what circumstances future generations 
     might face, most attorneys advise against it.
       Yet in preparing to designate another 60 million acres of 
     our national forests as permanently roadless, this is 
     precisely what the Clinton administration is preparing to do, 
     and it should not be allowed to succeed.
       Seeking support, the administration has argued (as it has 
     on every issue from higher taxes to gun control) that we need 
     to set aside these roadless areas for the children. Likewise, 
     environmentalists often cite the seven-generations concept of 
     the Iroquois nation, asking that we consider the implications 
     of our actions seven generations removed.
       These environmentalists, convinced that our generation 
     lives at the expense of the next, hope that trans-
     generational guilt will lead to policies more to their 
     liking.
       No matter how charming the notion, if we reverse the 
     exercise and think backward seven generations, we can see the 
     obvious shortcomings of the idea.
       If policies common 150 years ago had been perpetuated until 
     today, slavery would still exist, women would not be allowed 
     to vote and forests would be cut as fast as possible to clear 
     the land for farming.
       And, while environmentalists point to polls that indicate 
     the public's support of the roadless policy, I suspect polls 
     taken 150 years ago would have shown support for the above 
     policies too: policies that now seem terribly inappropriate.
       The truth these examples illustrate is that our ancestors 
     could not see the future, and neither can we. We can know 
     neither the demands nor the emergencies future generations 
     may face.
       Setting aside these lands as permanently roadless would be 
     a terrible mistake, tying the hands of future generations and 
     denying them the freedom and the choice to make their own 
     decisions. In other words, we would be controlling them from 
     the grave.
       Today, experts point out that as many as 65 million acres 
     of our national forest are at risk from wildfire and disease. 
     They also point to wildlife and plant species at risk due to 
     the aging of our forests. Consequently, most reject the 
     notion that public forests should be left unmanaged.
       Yet, the president's plan makes that naive idea a virtual 
     certainty. For that reason, the wildlife directors of five 
     southern states, Tennessee included, have publicly expressed 
     their concerns about the plan.
       Because flexibility is the most necessary tribute of long-
     range planning, the lack of it in the president's roadless 
     plan makes it woefully inadequate to meet the needs of future 
     generations.
       What we need is management that requires the U.S. Forest 
     Service to develop a plan every 10-15 years for each national 
     forest that will meet the public's needs while protecting the 
     long-term health and condition of the forests.
       Incorporating local input and sound science, these plans 
     would recognize that both forests and society are dynamic and 
     changing over time. Most of all, these plans would refrain 
     from giving the current generation irrevocable control over 
     subsequent ones. Their legacy would be their flexibility.

[[Page 13300]]

       This may sound too good to be true, but actually it is 
     pretty much the way the forest service does it now. The 
     president's new plan actually excludes the public from the 
     decision-making process, not just this generation but for all 
     those that follow.
       If you believe that each generation deserves the right to 
     make its own decision, then please contact the forest service 
     at the address below. Tell them that you oppose the 
     president's roadless plan and support instead Alternative 1, 
     which preserves the current planning process.
       Tell them that future generations should have the freedom 
     to choose their options instead of being forced to accept one 
     mandated by Bill Clinton and Al Gore.
       The address for comment: USDA Forest Service-CAET; Attn: 
     Roadless Area Proposed Rule; P.O. Box 221090; Salt Lake City, 
     Utah 84122. The fax number is 1-877-703-2494, and the e-mail 
     address is www.roadless.fa.fed.us.

     

                          ____________________