should be prohibited entirely, Senator Frank Church responded to 

 that testimony unfavorably by saying, "I think that you have given 

 the present use of the river and the fact that access to it for many 

 people who go into the canyon, if not the majority, is by the river, 

 and jetboats have been found to be the preferred method of travel 

 by a great many people who have gone into that canyon. This is 

 a matter of such importance that Congress itself should define 

 what the guidelines would be with respect to regulation of traffic 

 on the river, and that the discretion ought not to be left entirely 

 to the Administrative agencies." 



As a result of his strong position, the Hells Canyon National 

 Recreation Act provided clearly that both motorized and non- 

 motorized river craft were valid uses of the river. Despite the 

 strong record which outlines the intent of the act, the Forest Serv- 

 ice has drafted plans over the last 15 years that ignore the will of 

 Congress, and these points have been made abundantly clear to the 

 agency over time, but we are still faced today with a plan that pro- 

 poses management of the river as wilderness when Congress has 

 expressly stated it was not to be wilderness. 



We have had numerous hearing on oversight of the Forest Serv- 

 ice management and the same theme keeps coming to the forefront. 

 The agency is not following the intent of the law. Just as timber- 

 dependent communities are struggling under Forest Service that 

 favor preservation over resource use, so, too, are recreationalists 

 feeling squeezed by an agenda that favors one use over another. 



That is why clarifying legislation is needed. H.R. 2568 simply en- 

 sures that the intent of the original act is followed, and this legisla- 

 tion is supported by Idaho's Congressional Delegation and our Gov- 

 ernor, Phil Batt. 



I hope this hearing will shed some light on the agency's actions 

 over the last several years in Hells Canyon and the impact they 

 have on my constituents and their communities. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Kildee from 

 Michigan, do you have any opening statement? 



Mr. Kildee. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just listen to 

 the witnesses. 



Mr. Hansen. I appreciate your being with us. Mr. Secretary, we 

 will start with you and go right down the list. Let me just ask be- 

 fore we start, does anyone on the panel need more than seven min- 

 utes? 



Mr. Lyons. I believe, Mr. Chairman, I will present the opening 

 statement for the entire panel. I won't use all of their seven min- 

 utes, and then we will all be prepared to answer questions. 



Mr. Hansen. Do you need ten? 



Mr. Lyons. Ten would do fine. 



Mr. Hansen. We will start with ten minutes and limit everyone 

 from then on to seven, and I can see we have a long day here, so 

 perhaps we have to give the next panels five. 



Thank you for being with us. 



