William R. Richardson: “there are policy reasons why this bill should be rejected, serious and substantial policy reasons. There are three basic…”

“there are policy reasons why this bill should be rejected, serious and substantial policy reasons. There are three basic broad reasons. First, this is a bill that is unacceptable because it would unduly restrict our ability to protect our natural resources and our cultural heritage. The second reason this bill does not promote the technology that we need for long-term energy conservation and economic growth. Third, the one perhaps most important to me and many others that have native American populations in their States, is that this bill seriously undermines our commitment to provide adequate health, educational and other services to native Americans. Let me also talk about the Tongass. I have been to the Tongass. Just because you may represent that area does not mean that you have all the wisdom of that area. In the Tongass, this bill would allow harmful clear-cutting, require the sale of timber at unsustainable levels. And it would dictate the need for an outdated forest plan for the next fiscal year. In the Columbia River basin, the bill would impede implementation of a comprehensive plan. The result, gridlock, court challenges on timber harvesting, grazing, mining and other important activities. In the California Desert, the bill undermines our designation of the Mojave National Preserve by cutting funding for the preserve and shifting responsibility for its management from the Park Service to the BLM.”