36 



agreement also includes grazing and timber extraction that is cer- 

 tainly different in the bill than in that negotiated agreement. 



Mr, Brown. The provisions of the bill with regard to most of 

 those items that you have mentioned, which would come within the 

 purview of the scientific management of the forest, require the de- 

 velopment of a plan upon recommendation of the scientific advisory 

 committee. There is no prescription in the bill whatsoever. 



Mr. J. Thomas. There is a prescription in the bill, for example — 

 I do not want to debate you about your own bill, but it eliminates 

 grazing in 10 years. 



Mr. Brown. I am sorry; I cannot hear you while the buzzers are 

 ringing. All right. 



Mr. J. Thomas. I said I do not want to debate you on the provi- 

 sions of your own bill, which you obviously know better than I, but 

 for example, it eliminates grazing in 10 years, a flat-out statement. 



Mr. Brown. And that is not a subject of the negotiated agree- 

 ment, is it? 



Mr. J. Thomas. Grazing was to continue, yes. 



Mr. Brown. I am not familiar with what the negotiated agree- 

 ment does. All I am reading is the language of the bill, which re- 

 quires you to carry out the stipulations of the agreement with re- 

 gard to the regeneration of the forest. Now, there may be some 

 other things in here, but I am not 



Mr. J. Thomas. All right. We are in violent agreement. In that 

 one instance, we were ordered to carry out the negotiated agree- 

 ment. There are other aspects to the negotiated agreement 



Mr. Brown. Well, isn't that the primary purpose of the agree- 

 ment, to provide for the protection and regeneration of the forest? 



Mr. J. Thomas. The MSA covered all aspects of forest manage- 

 ment, not just that one. But I am trying to say with you, yes, I 

 agree that there is no conflict on that one provision. But the nego- 

 tiated agreement covered considerably more things that are 

 changed, 



Mr. Brown. Well, obviously, I am somewhat partial to the bill 

 and want to defend it against what I think might be erroneous 

 statements on the part of any of the people who oppose it, and I 

 was disturbed by your response indicating that the bill negates the 

 settlement, I think you said that in general, and that is not my un- 

 derstanding of the bill. Certainly it is not the intent of the bill, 

 even with regard to grazing, where it provides for a 10-year con- 

 tinuation of the existing grazing. 



As far as I am concerned, if it is found by you or the scientific 

 board that that in no way contributes to the degradation or opti- 

 mum use of the forest, I would be willing to continue it indefinitely. 

 But we can work that out as we proceed with the bill. 



Mr, J, Thomas, Congressman, let me try to clarify. What I meant 

 to say was, when you have legislation, legislation replaces what- 

 ever is there. It becomes statutory, and we will react to it that way, 



Mr, Brown, Mr, Thomas, it clearly states that it requires only 

 to implement the agreement that you are talking about, I do not 

 quite understand what you are getting at when you say that it re- 

 places it, 



Mr. J. Thomas. All right, let me try one more time, please. The 

 example you give is exactly correct. There are a number of other 



