Colorado Wilderness Act of 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, when the Republicans were in the majority, we set three overarching objectives for our Federal lands policy: to restore public access to the public lands, to restore good management to the public lands, and to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities impacted by the public lands. This bill is the very opposite of these three policies.
The purpose of America's public lands was to set aside our most beautiful tracts, in the words of the original Yosemite Charter, ``for public use, resort, and recreation . . . for all time.''
The bill before us does exactly the opposite: It imposes severe restrictions on the public's use of 2.5 million acres of their own lands; 1.5 million acres would be put off limits to such innocent things as mountain bikes and strollers; and it would remove roads to reach campsites or even allow emergency equipment to access. It also designates 843 additional miles of our rivers as wild and scenic.
Does anybody think that sounds good?
I can tell my colleagues that that designation on the Merced River in my district has been used to close many traditional tourist amenities at Yosemite Park, including swimming pools, raft and bike rentals, horseback riding stables, and ice skating and lodging facilities.
``Public use, resort, and recreation'' becomes ``Look, but don't touch.''
The health and vitality of our forests depends on active scientific forest management. That means carefully tending our forests to protect them from morbid overcrowding, which, in turn, makes them vulnerable to disease, pestilence, drought, and, ultimately, catastrophic wildfire.
Excess timber comes out of the forest in one of two ways: It is either burned out or it is carried out. This bill makes good forest management impossible by forbidding our foresters from using their science to protect and groom and care for our forests by assuring that trees have room to grow strong.
Finally, this bill ignores and insults the communities directly affected by this massive Federal land grab. In case after case, local elected officials, local governments, local fire districts, and local residents in the nearby communities have formally, vigorously, and vocally protested the draconian restrictions imposed by this measure because they imperil public safety from fire, and they do wanton harm to the local economies.
This bill reverses the three objectives set by House Republicans:
Instead of restoring public access to public lands, the Democrats restrict and deny it;
Instead of restoring good management to the public lands, the Democrats forbid it;
Instead of restoring the Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities impacted by the public lands, the Democrats give those communities the finger.
What Obama said about elections having consequences, here it is in real life.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government owns just seven- tenths of 1 percent of the State of New York. It owns 1.1 percent of the State of Illinois. It owns just 1.8 percent of the entire State of Texas. In fact, the Federal Government only owns one-fourth of Washington, D.C.
But then go farther west, and you will see the problem. The Federal Government owns and controls 62 percent of the State of Alaska, two- thirds of Utah, and four-fifths of the State of Nevada. It owns nearly half of my home State of California. In one county in my district, Alpine County, the Federal Government owns 96 percent.
People from the East have no idea what that means. That is all lands that is off the local tax rolls. That is all land that carries increasingly severe restrictions on public use and access, which means it is generating very little economic activity for those regions. Often, Federal ownership means the Federal land-use policies are in direct contravention to the wishes of the local communities that are entangled with it.
Now, when we Republicans held the majority, one of our Federal lands objectives was to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities directly impacted by the Federal lands. The bill before us does exactly the opposite. This bill adds 1\1/2\ million acres of Federal land to wilderness restrictions, meaning you can't even bring a stroller on these lands.
This land grab is strongly opposed by the local communities it would directly affect. The Mesa County commission and Garfield County, Colorado, oppose this bill because of concerns it will further restrict public access and increase the risk of fire. The Congressman representing those areas opposes the legislation.
Mr. Chair, 80 percent of Del Norte County in California is already owned by the State and Federal Governments, and their board of supervisors is protesting the further restriction of public access to these lands, noting that these lands don't even meet wilderness criteria.
Trinity County has also formally opposed the bill, yet we are plowing ahead anyway. The Monrovia City Council protests the enormous economic burdens this bill would place on their city. So, too, the Grays Harbor County Commission and the city councils of Aberdeen and Cosmopolis in Washington State beg us not to impose these restrictions on their communities, and I could go on.
Representing the Sierra Nevada of California, I can tell you there are no more fierce or knowledgeable guardians of our forests than the people who live among them. My amendment simply restores the good neighbor policy the Republicans practiced for many years. It simply provides that wilderness restrictions cannot be imposed until the county on which the land is located approves of them.
Mr. Chair, I would ask my Democratic colleagues to show a little humility and a little mercy in exercising their power by listening to the people most affected by their decisions and adopt this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask the gentlewoman, if it is true that local people affected by this bill actually support it, then what does she have to fear from getting their approval? Her opposition to this amendment puts the lie to her claim that the local people support it and tells us she doesn't believe her own rhetoric.
Gifford Pinchot, the father of the U.S. Forest Service, propounded maxims for good behavior by foresters. He said, among other things:
A public official is there to serve the public and not run them.
Public support of acts affecting public rights is absolutely required.
It is more trouble to consult the public than to ignore them, but that is what you were hired to do.
Get rid of an attitude of personal arrogance or pride of attainment of superior knowledge.
Mr. Chairman, this bill turns these maxims upside down.
It says to local residents: We know what's best for you and your communities; your opinions are unimportant to us, your wishes are irrelevant, and your voices are unheard. We're in charge and we'll damn well do as we please.
I ask my Democratic colleagues to step back and consider how you would react to a government that takes such an attitude as that.
My amendment simply asks the people and trusts the people. If we are still a government of, by, and for the people, that is the least we can do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, when the Wilderness Act was adopted in 1964, it designated about 9 million acres; that is a little larger than the State of Maryland. Over the years, that has ballooned to 111 million acres, a land area the size of California. This bill adds 1\1/ 2\ million acres more. That is the size of Delaware and half of Rhode Island combined.
The restrictions in the wilderness areas are severe. You can't bring a bicycle on these lands. You can't drive to a campsite.
The Wilderness Act provides for wilderness designation only for those lands that are--and listen to this carefully--``an area where the Earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain'' and ``an area of underdeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.''
Well, much of the land in this bill doesn't begin to meet these criteria. The Department of the Interior, and the local communities directly affected by this bill, are warning us that this new Federal land grab includes acreage on which there are buildings and roads, grazing and off-road vehicle trails, bicycle trails, communication towers, small businesses, mines and oil wells.
Moreover, motorized and mechanized firefighting and fire suppression equipment is currently allowed on these lands but would be severely restricted if the land is designated as wilderness. All you can use in a wilderness area, without special permission, is a handsaw, a shovel, and an axe to fight a fire.
To include such acreage under the Wilderness Act makes a mockery of its original intent and poses a direct threat to the tourism, livelihoods, jobs, safety, and quality of life of the communities adjacent to them.
Abraham Lincoln once told of the farmer who said: ``I ain't greedy for land. All I want is what's next to mine.'' That appears to be the new motto of the Democrats, and it is having a devastating impact on our mountain and rural communities.
The amendment I offer simply provides that the relevant Department Secretary, either Agriculture or Interior, can exempt those lands contained in this bill that do not meet the legal requirements of the Wilderness Act or the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, restoring the original intent of these laws.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, once again, I would ask the gentlewoman that if what she says is true, that the lands in this bill meet the legal requirements, she has nothing to fear from my amendment. Only where the land does not meet legal requirements can a Secretary exempt it.
One of the objectives we had set when we were in the majority was to restore public access to the public lands. These lands are set aside for the use, enjoyment, and recreation of the American people for all time. And that includes a wide range of activities, most of which are prohibited under wilderness or wild and scenic rivers designation. Such severe restrictions on public access should be used very carefully and sparingly.
My amendment simply says: That the lands affected by this bill must meet the legal definitions contained in the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It doesn't modify those acts; it affirms them.
The despots of Great Britain early on set aside a third of the countryside as the ``King's royal forests,'' the private preserves of the royal court and their hangers-on. Commoners were severely restricted from these lands under draconian penalties. They were so resented by the British people that no fewer than five clauses in the Magna Carta were devoted to redressing these grievances.
The American public lands were supposed to be exactly the opposite of the King's forests. These are lands set aside for the common enjoyment of the American people in all the many and varied outdoor activities and pursuits that they cherish.
By ignoring the legal definitions of the Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts and scooping up and putting off-limits to most activities vast tracts of land held by and for the public, the Democrats make a mockery of these laws and undermine public support for them.
We have heard a lot recently that no one is above the law. Well, that includes Congress. This amendment assures that the lands affected by this bill meet the criteria of the original laws that they invoke.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source