Federal regulations, particularly with regard to land use, is a topic of a great deal of debate before this Subcommittee.

My fear is...that we are on the road to a confrontation between Congress and the Forest Service.

We must be able to ensure that policies are put into place so that we can wisely and prudently balance the many competing and worthy uses of these lands and resources.

National forests are an important and necessary source of economic activity and recreation for local communities and the public.

What about cultural sustenance? Is that a legal term somewhere?

There is a lack of comfort level in what we are talking about here.

I cannot understand how the Forest Service is imposing a legal obligation on itself to preserve species at risk.

We desperately need that again today.

Welcome to the world of regulatory takings.

should your subcommittee see fit to hold a field hearing on the TMP and water permit issues in Elko, Nevada, it would be greatly appreciated by the citizens there.

When the government stops Colorado from making snow, maybe we can work out a plan to get the greatest snow on earth shipped over to you in some way and you can continue going.

You have the authority to manage for habitat but not for specific species.

The problem that we have is that what your goals are, which seem to be extremely rational and progressive, is not indicative of the verbiage that is in this proposed rule.

We would also like to thank Representative Tipton from Colorado for his leadership on the issue.

This resource needs to be managed for the benefit of all the users.

It is not a legal term somewhere?

I truly wish the Forest Service would go back and tighten down the rules so it says indeed what you intend it to say because it doesn't right now, and there is not a great deal of trust, as you have heard from other Members here, with…

We respectfully request Congress's assistance in reversing this new Forest Service policy.