62 



And let the truth be that we are going to increase recreational 

 opportunities, and let it be spelled out how that is going to happen, 

 to your satisfaction. 



Mr. POMBO. It is a major concern of mine, because I believe that 

 we are dishonest with the American people when we continue to 

 tell them that we are going to increase recreational opportunities 

 by setting aside all these areas as wilderness areas and everything 

 else. 



My main concern with this type of legislation is the effect on the 

 private property owners, encircling them with this type of a pre- 

 serve. Because I believe it will drastically limit their ability to con- 

 tinue doing what they are currently doing on the property. 



Mr. Wolf. Could I make a quick observation, Mr. Chairman, on 

 this point? 



Mr. CONDIT. Yes, and then we can close it up. 



Mr. Wolf. The 1987 act provides the Secretary may make rea- 

 sonable rules and regulations governing the use and occupgmcy of 

 the national forests. He has had that authority for nearly 100 

 years, and he can make any regulation he wants. 



Right now, 70,000 miles of the road system on the national for- 

 ests are closed. You can find it out by looking in the Forest Service 

 annual report. While you may talk about what this bill does, the 

 Secretary has all this authority already. This bill doesn't grant him 

 new authority. It just says, again, what the law already says. 



The other point I think that you ought to keep in mind is that 

 on the Sequoia National Forest, you could drop the cut 35 to 45 

 million feet under the allowable sale quantity, and you would be 

 down at the level the cutting has been for the past 5 years. 



When you start talking about the effect on the cut, you need to 

 be considering the real effect versus the theoretical effect. Theoreti- 

 cally, you could drop the cut a great deal. But, realistically, it's al- 

 ready 35 to 45 million feet below what they can do now. 



Mr. POMBO. The real effect of this bill on the timber cut is that 

 it eliminates it. 



Mr. Wolf. Well, the real effect is, again, the National Forest 

 Management Act and the 1897 act — all it says is, the Secretary 

 may sell timber. There is no prescribed amount, required by law, 

 on any national forest. That's the way it's been since 1987. It's 

 "may." 



Mr. POMBO. Well, we can go back a little bit further than that, 

 and bring up a document called the Constitution of the United 

 States, and specifically pull out the Fifth Amendment, which guar- 

 antees people private property rights. 



I mean, if you want to go back and look at documents, we put 

 aside the private property right guarantee that's held in the Con- 

 stitution of the United States, every day, when we act on this com- 

 mittee and the other committees on which I serve on. 



Mr. CONDIT. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. I'd like to follow up on Mr. 

 Pombo's question, and I'd like you to keep your answers brief so we 

 can move to the next panel, so I'll keep my questions brief, if I can. 



Ms. Cloer, you had said that the private rights within the pre- 

 serve will not be at risk. Can you guarantee the owners or resi- 

 dents within or adjacent to the giant sequoia ecosystem that these 

 residents will be exempt from condenmation or removal? How can 



