15 



one to one telephone calls in the office trying to work things out 

 so they can get this stuff resolved. 



That is why I think it behooves this committee to come up — and 

 I don't mean to belabor it, and I am talking about it too much al- 

 ready, but I do really think it behooves this committee to come up 

 with a straightforward, bang, bang, bang, "Here are three steps. 

 You take it or you are out the door." 



I don't mind doing tort reform. I have done tort reform all of my 

 political career, and I am looking forward to us doing one. And, I 

 say this very respectfully to my good friend, Mr. David Unger, if 

 the Forest Service doesn't do it, we will. 



Mr. Unger. Well, let me respond directly, Mr. Chairman, that we 

 would be happy to discuss with you and your staff any ideas that 

 might help to reduce the number of appeals that would be reaching 

 us if that can be done in a reasonable manner. 



There are questions about the written versus oral comments. 

 There are questions about whether we could require more specific 

 allegations to be filed rather than general ones. There are ques- 

 tions about whether it is appropriate to deal with issues that 

 weren't raised earlier in the early stages of the project. 



Mr. Hansen. I agree with all those statements. 



Mr. Unger. It is difficult to define those, but we would be happy 

 to discuss them with you and see if we could come up with any pro- 

 posals that make sense. 



Mr. Hansen. One place in the world I agree with Ross Perot is 

 the devil is in the details, and working those out are difficult. But 

 we have those same frustrations. You folks come in and say some- 

 body involved. Who is involved? Somebody goes to a meeting and 

 chants in the back and sings. Does that make him involved? We 

 want to know who has standing. 



I don't think some guy from Timbuktu has standing just because 

 he puts a three-by-five card up. I don't think a lot of these things — 

 this involvement thing has bothered me for years. So maybe we 

 have got to get down to definitions and go from there, and I apolo- 

 gize to the committee for taking too much time. The gentlelady 

 from Idaho. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for ar- 

 riving late. I do have a statement I would like to enter into the 

 record. 



Mr. Hansen. Without objection. 



[Statement of Mrs. Chenoweth follows:] 



Statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth, a U.S. Representative from Idaho 



Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on an issue that des- 

 perately needs the attention of Congress. And I want to thank the witnesses who 

 have come today to share their experience and insight. 



In the last few years we have undoubtedly seen the complete abuse of the Forest 

 Service administrative appeals process. This has resulted in more and more of For- 

 est Service man hours and taxpayer dollars being diverted from the on-the-ground 

 management of the resource to mounds of pointless paperwork. These massive 

 amounts of frivolous appeals have also had the effect of delaying timber sales some- 

 times for years. These delays have resulted in a dramatic loss of value especially 

 for sales that involve diseased and dying timber. In addition, it has impeded the 

 Forest Service's ability to consistently move timber out of the forests, making it next 

 to impossible for companies and communities to plan from year to year on what is 

 going to come from the Federal forests. These appeals have had the cumulative ef- 



