[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11722-11723]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            GREENS GONE WILD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I rise today to warn of the latest episode of a saga 
that can best be described as ``greens gone wild.''
  It involves the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to declare 2 
million acres in the Sierra Nevada Mountains as ``critical habitat'' 
for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the Yosemite toad under 
the Endangered Species Act. That is essentially the footprint of the 
Sierra Nevada Mountains from Lassen County, which is north of Tahoe, to 
Kern County, which is just outside of Los Angeles. This designation 
would add draconian new restrictions to those that have already 
severely reduced productive uses such as grazing, timber harvesting, 
mining, recreation and tourism, and fire suppression.
  And for what?
  Even the Fish and Wildlife Service admits that the two biggest 
factors in the decline of these amphibian populations is not human 
activity at all but, rather, non-native trout predators and the Bd 
fungus that has stricken amphibian populations across the Western 
United States, neither of which will be alleviated by this drastic 
expansion of Federal regulations. The species that will be most 
affected by this action is the human population, and that impact will 
be tragic, severe and entirely preventable.
  For example, timber harvesting that once removed the overgrowth from 
our forests and put it to productive use, assuring us both healthier 
forests and a thriving economy, is down more than 80 percent since the 
1980s in the Sierras--all because of government restrictions. The 
result is more frequent and intense forest fires, closed mills, 
unemployed families, and a devastated economy throughout the region.
  Existing regulations already effectively put hundreds of thousands of 
acres of forests off-limits to human activity through such laws as the 
Wilderness Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Clean Water Act, 
the National Environmental Policy Act, not to mention a crushing array 
of California State regulations. This proposal by the Fish and Wildlife 
Service would vastly expand those restrictions.
  This policy seems to be part of a much bigger picture. In Yosemite 
National Park, for example, the Department of the Interior is proposing 
to expel longstanding tourist amenities from the valley and lock in a 
plan that would result in 27 percent fewer campsites than it had in 
1997 and 31 percent less lodging. Throughout the Sierra Nevada, the 
U.S. Forest Service is closing access to roads, imposing cost-
prohibitive fees and conditions on cabin rentals, grazing rights, 
mining and, of course, timber harvesting while obstructing longstanding 
community events on which many of these towns rely for their tourism.
  The one common denominator in these actions is an obvious desire to

[[Page 11723]]

discourage the public's use of the public's land. Gifford Pinchot, the 
legendary founder of the U.S. Forest Service, always said the purpose 
of the public lands was the ``greatest good for the greatest number in 
the long run.'' John Muir, the legendary conservationist responsible 
for preserving Yosemite Valley, did so, in the words of the legislation 
he inspired, for the express purpose of ``public use, resort and 
recreation.''
  These visions for the sound management of our public lands that were 
held by the pioneers of our national parks and forest systems are 
quickly being replaced by elitist and exclusionary policies that can 
best be described as ``look, but don't touch; visit, but don't enjoy.''
  No one values the natural resources of the Sierra Nevada more than 
the people who live there and who have entrusted me to speak for them 
in Congress. These communities have jealously safeguarded the beauty of 
the region and the sustainable use of the lands for generations. Their 
prosperity--and their posterity--depends on the responsible use and 
stewardship of these lands.
  Now Federal authorities are replacing these balanced and responsible 
policies with vastly different ones that amount to a policy of 
exclusion and benign neglect. We have a sacred obligation to future 
generations to preserve and protect our public lands, but protecting 
our public lands for future generations doesn't mean we must close them 
to the current generation.

                          ____________________