Sherwood Boehlert: “I rise to once again reinforce my opposition to this measure. And it is too bad that it has worked out this way, because…”

“I rise to once again reinforce my opposition to this measure. And it is too bad that it has worked out this way, because it could have been worked out in such a way that this bill would have passed unanimously in the House of Representatives. Ninety percent of the provisions in this bill are good provisions and could pass on the suspension calendar, which is reserved for noncontroversial items. But 10 percent of the bill, 10 percent of the bill, is not good. It is bad public policy. I would suggest to my colleagues that anyone who wants to do good would not prescribe a solution, a potion, 90 percent penicillin laced with 10 percent arsenic. Let us recap what this bill would do. This bill would remove areas from wilderness protection. It would set new weaker guidelines for wilderness protection. It would waive normal environmental reviews for a road across world famous salmon streams. It would create new barriers to the creation of discovery trails. It would create new incentives to cut trees in national forests. And it would transfer Federal property in a manner that endangers the environment and cheats taxpayers.”