[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13370-13371]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  THE PRESIDENT'S ROADLESS INITIATIVE

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate 
this week as the Forest Service has launched a series of meetings in my 
state and around the country to solicit comments on the 
Administration's proposed roadless initiative. I want to encourage 
Oregonians to send in their comments and attend these meetings to make 
their voices heard.
  I am concerned that so many of my constituents will not take part in 
this comment period in part because they believe that this roadless 
policy is a foregone conclusion. Frankly, I don't think the Forest 
Service did much to change those feelings by including language in its 
draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which characterized 
loggers, mill workers, and people in the timber products industry in 
general as uneducated, opportunistic, and unable to adapt to change. 
Many Oregonians, not just those in resource industries, were offended 
by this.
  I understand that the Administration has subsequently apologized, but 
I am afraid this incident only added to the feeling held by many 
Oregonians that the decisions about this roadless plan have already 
been made. So I want to take this opportunity today to outline some of 
my concerns about this roadless initiative and to encourage other 
Oregonians to take advantage of the remaining weeks of this public 
comment period to do the same.
  Mr. President, the management of the roadless areas in our National 
Forest System has been the subject of debate for many years. We had the 
RARE I (Roadless Area Review and Evaluation) process in the early 1970s 
leading to inventories and analysis of the large roadless areas in our 
National Forests. Then we had RARE II under the Carter Administration.
  That process was followed by a number of state-specific bills, such 
as the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984, where roadless areas that were 
suitable for wilderness protection were so designated and other 
roadless areas were to be released for multiple uses. Despite the 
growth of the wilderness system in this country, the management of 
other roadless areas has remained controversial.
  Now this Administration has proposed a roadless initiative that would 
permanently ban road construction from some 43 million acres of 
inventoried roadless areas. In addition, this draft EIS calls for each 
Forest, upon its periodic Forest Plan revision, to protect additional 
roadless areas, often referred to as uninventoried roadless areas. No 
one, not even the Forest Service, seems to know how many millions of 
acres that may ultimately be. So the President is proposing setting 
aside an additional 45 to 60 million acres of the National Forest 
system on top of the 35 million acres that are already designated as 
wilderness areas. Let me remind my colleagues that the entire National 
Forest System is 192 million acres and that there are numerous riparian 
areas and wildlife buffer zones that are also off limits to road 
construction. So we may well have more than half of our National Forest 
System permanently set aside and inaccessible to most of the public by 
the time this Administration is through.
  What is even more alarming to me is the position of the Vice 
President on this issue. In a speech to the League of Conservation 
Voters last month, Al Gore said the Administration's preferred 
alternative does not go far enough. Perhaps Mr. Gore's ``Progress and 
Prosperity'' tour should make a few stops in rural Oregon so he can see 
first-hand the results of eight years of passive management of our 
federal lands--double digit unemployment and four day school weeks. As 
part of the Administration that is writing this rule and is supposedly 
keeping an open mind while taking comments from the public this month, 
it seems a bit premature for the Vice President to speak so favorably 
of an alternative that is ostensibly still being reviewed. I know the 
Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and the Chairman of the House 
Resources Committee have requested the Vice President recuse himself 
from the rest of this rule-making process. I agree with the Chairmen 
and hope the Vice President will try to restore the public's confidence 
that this rule-making is not predetermined and that it is open, as 
required by law, to the comments and suggestions of the public.
  Mr. President, some of my colleagues may ask why new roads may be 
needed in the National Forest System. There are many reasons, but 
perhaps the most urgent purpose is forest health.
  A century of fire suppression followed by years of inactive forest 
management under this Administration have left our National Forest 
System overstocked with underbrush and unnaturally dense tree stands 
that are now at risk of catastrophic wildfire. The GAO recently found 
that at least 39 million acres of the National Forest System are at 
high risk for catastrophic fire. According to the Forest Service, 26 
million acres are at risk from insects and disease infestations as 
well. The built up fuel loads in these forests create abnormally hot 
wildfires that are extremely difficult to control. This year's fires in 
New Mexico have given us a preview of what is to come throughout our 
National Forest System if we continue this Administration's policy of 
passive forest management.
  To prevent catastrophic fire and widespread insect infestation and 
disease outbreaks, these forests need to be treated. The underbrush 
needs to be removed. The forests must be thinned to allow the remaining 
trees to grow more rapidly and more naturally. While some of this work 
can be done without roads, roads are many times required in order to 
carry out this necessary work. Yet this Administration apparently wants 
to make it more difficult to address these problems, more difficult to 
stop fires like those in New Mexico before they start. And the Vice 
President wants to go even further than that.
  Why else are roads needed in the National Forest System? Forest roads 
provide millions of Americans with access to the National Forests for 
recreational purposes. With the Forest Service predicting tremendous 
increases in recreational visits to the National Forest System in the 
coming years, shouldn't there at least be a thorough examination of how 
this roadless plan will affect the remaining areas of our National 
Forests, which will apparently have to absorb most of these new 
visitors? And what about the needs of seniors and disabled visitors? 
Compounding the problem, this Administration will be decommissioning 
many roads currently used by recreational visitors. In its rush to 
complete this sweeping rule, this Administration does not seem to have 
the time

[[Page 13371]]

to examine seriously the impacts of steering more and more recreational 
visitors to a smaller percentage of the Forest System.
  Mr. President, I am also concerned about how this roadless initiative 
is supposed to interact with the Northwest Forest Plan. Last year, I 
came to the floor of the Senate and I expressed concerns about this 
Administration's forestry policies and its weak implementation of its 
own plan that was supposed to lay the groundwork for a cooperative 
resolution to the timber disputes of the early 1990s. Unfortunately, as 
our federal agencies scour the forests to survey for mosses, we 
continue to have gridlock in the Northwest, with none of the promised 
sustainable and predictable timber harvests in sight. So how much 
confidence does this Administration have in its own Northwest Forest 
Plan? By reading its roadless proposal, the answer is ``not much.'' 
Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan has thorough standards and guidelines 
for activities in the forests covered by the plan, including 
roadbuilding. This Administration had previously exempted the Northwest 
Forest Plan forests from its road building moratoriums because it was 
still clinging to the notion that its plan was the model for forestry 
policy in the future. Unlike those temporary moratoria, however, the 
Administration's roadless initiative makes no exception for the forests 
covered by the Northwest Forest Plan. To me, this suggests that even 
this Administration is acknowledging what many in the Northwest have 
said for some time: The Clinton Forest Plan is a failure. Rural Oregon 
already knew that. Now with this roadless proposal, this Administration 
will only make it harder for any future Administration to keep its 
promises under the Northwest Forest Plan. This fact is most obvious in 
the town of Klamath Falls in southern Oregon. Like many towns in the 
Northwest surrounded by federal lands, Klamath Falls was encouraged by 
this Administration to create jobs and economic growth through 
recreation and eco-tourism in order to compensate for the loss of the 
timber jobs. Of course, it is difficult to find substitutes for the 
family wage jobs that the timber industry once provided for these 
towns. Nevertheless, rural Oregon has tried to diversify its economy.
  More than three years ago, developers and community leaders in 
Klamath Falls embarked upon the arduous process of obtaining a special 
use permit to launch a winter recreation area at Pelican Butte in the 
nearby Winema National Forest. Millions of dollars were spent and 
countless hours were invested by everyone from the local forest 
service, to the developers, to the local government and the community 
as a whole. A final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 
Decision are due next year. Now, due to the fact that Pelican Butte 
will require three miles of road in a currently inventoried roadless 
area, the Administration's roadless initiative will effectively kill 
the plan. In its zeal to complete this plan before leaving office, this 
Administration apparently does not want to take the time to make 
reasonable accommodations for proposals that have been in the pipeline 
for years. Never mind the fact that the Pelican Butte project will 
result in a net decrease in road mileage on National Forest lands. 
Never mind the fact that Oregonians were told by this Administration to 
go and find other means to develop their economy outside of timber. The 
message to Oregonians is clear: If the roadless plan is to be concluded 
before President Clinton leaves office, there is no time to spare to 
consider the effort and good will invested by the people of Klamath 
Falls in the Pelican Butte proposal. The fact is that this 
Administration doesn't care how many rural communities are left in the 
dust by this regulatory juggernaut.
  Mr. President, all of this is very discouraging for Oregonians who 
have a sense this Administration has already made up its mind on this 
roadless initiative. It is my understanding that many of my 
constituents have just received copies of this draft EIS in the last 
few days--with half of the brief comment period already expired. 
Nevertheless, from the floor of the Senate today, I am pleading with my 
constituents to get out there during this comment period and make their 
voices heard. This rulemaking is too significant for Oregonians to be 
silent.
  Mr. President, I agree with this Administration that we need a long-
term resolution to the management of our roadless areas. But common 
sense tells us that what is needed and appropriate for one area may not 
be sound stewardship for another. With this roadless initiative, this 
Administration is talking about setting aside in one broad stroke 
millions of acres that are supposed to be held in trust for all 
Americans. Even worse, this plan is being rushed through a truncated 
public comment process in order to accommodate an artificial political 
deadline. This isn't the way to manage our precious natural resources 
and this isn't the way to treat our rural communities. The management 
of these roadless areas is a complicated question, and it deserves more 
than the simple answer being force-fed to us by this Administration.

                          ____________________