9 



good job based on the timber sale receipts, it certainly should have 

 been Region VI. We are here today to look at what the history has 

 been, and obviously, where there have been shortcomings it pre- 

 sents new challenges. 



But today we are looking a little retrospectively at it. In looking 

 at what the new definition or the new policy path ought to be in 

 this area. I don't think there is as much disagreement as there is 

 about boundaries and reserves and timber harvest levels. But I 

 think much of it is going to be impacted by the timber receipts 

 question and how we utilize that. 



Mr, Wyden. I think, if I could just make a quick comment, not 

 only do I share your view, but I think Congressman DeFazio put 

 it very well. The challenge is getting people's attention here. I 

 mean there is a tremendous amount of work to be done here. The 

 legislation that I have introduced is one way to go. I am sure there 

 are other ways to go. What I found appealing about this kind of 

 approach, and the chairman is absolutely right with respect to re- 

 ceipts going down, is that this kind of an approach in terms of 

 BLM reforestation would really put the program on a pay-as-you- 

 go kind of basis. We would have the certainty of knowing that if 

 you sell a tree you would then set aside a certain amount to re- 

 olant the tree. 



And I think that, as we look to future policies that promote forest 

 health and create jobs, that makes sense. I just hope we can get 

 everybody's attention with something like this that is so very im- 

 portant when, as our colleague Congressman DeFazio has said, so 

 often the more controversial, more incendiary issues dominate the 

 attention. 



Mr. Vento. Are there further questions or comments for our col- 

 league from Oregon? Mr. Smith? Mr. DeFazio? 



Mr. DeFazio. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. 



I appreciate the work that our colleague has done on this and 

 would hope very much that we can, as he said, begin to put more 

 emphasis on these issues. I have a question, and it is gomg to be 

 a little bit problematic, and so I am not trying to put you on the 

 spot. If you want to defer, you can. 



But part of my problem, part of the agency's problem, and part 

 of the problem with the legislation you have proposed, is that given 

 the current court injunctions, given this new SAT report that was 

 passed down by a group of biologists and others in response to the 

 judge, which instead of looking at just vertebrate species looked at 

 some 600 species that are potentially old-growth dependent under 

 NFMA, but they also delved a bit into restrictions on BLM land in 

 that report. I am not sure that we know where on second-growth 

 lands we can make these investments, so I am not certain how we 

 would go forward with an inventory and a report. A few environ- 

 mental advocates labor. Some scientists have questioned the idea 

 that within these reserves, set up a la Jack Ward Thomas, that on 

 all of the second-growth lands nothing could go forward. That only 

 natural processes would go forward. In fact, we could manage these 

 lands back to a desirable state mimicking old growth or whatever 

 age/class distribution or species distribution we wanted better than 

 we could waiting for catastrophic or other events over a long period 

 of time. 



