Congressman Insists He Cares

I was disappointed with Rich Landers’ Jan. 18, 1996 column for several reasons.

First, I do own a cabin in the woods, I do like the outdoors. I do like to fish and have done so over the years in Alaska, Idaho and Washington. Most importantly, I do care very much about the health of our natural resources. I also believe that disagreement about existing environmental policy and cost does not automatically justify distortion of the facts as set forth by Rich in his column.

Second, the Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project has cost the taxpayers $24 million so far, it is not authorized by law, and the public has received no report from the federal agencies conducting the study about how the money has been spent.

I have put no hold on scientific research and instead seek any and all science which may help solve some of the resources problems which face our area. We should receive all scientific information which has been compiled by the agency scientists to this point before we decide to spend more taxpayers’ money. To use the Landers analogy, I don’t want to remove the bread from the oven before it’s baked, I just want to be sure it is bread we’re baking. And maybe it’s already cooked enough.

Remember, this study covers seven states and 144 million acres. Shouldn’t the public be fully informed about the findings thus far? Certainly they should, and that’s what we’re trying to do.

Third, the timber salvage bill was signed into law by President Clinton, with whom I assume Rich identifies closely on resources issues. Rather than criticize the President and Democrats who voted for the bill, Rich takes after the Republicans in Congress.

The assertion that all environmental laws are ignored is just not true. Environmental assessments and biological evaluations are required under the salvage law.

Most importantly, the salvage law is designed to clean up the forests of our nation and prevent diseased and dying timber from creating forest fire hazards, threats to life and enormous cost. Would Rich rather have unhealthy forests be kindling for forest fires and have all diseased and dying trees stay where they are? Please say no.

Finally, the debate about resources use and the best affordable federal policy for maintaining a healthy forest system for all Americans is one we all should have. Rather than assert dramatically, without evidence, that “Nethercutt just doesn’t care,” the Landers article trivializes the political and legislative process.

The Congress is currently struggling with these issues as we seek to balance the federal budget for future generations. And, it would have been nice if Rich had at least talked to me about my views on these issues before writing the column. But then, maybe he just doesn’t care.

Editor’s note: Telephone records show that in preparing his column, Rich Landers contacted Ken Lisaius, Rep. Nethercutt’s press secretary, eight times.