24 



That is simply the wrong message. If the process is still ongoing, 

 then let the process continue. If, at the end of the process, you be- 

 lieve that it is a failed process, then move the legislation. Don't 

 move the legislation in the middle of the process before it has been 

 concluded. 



Mr. Brown. May I assure the two gentlemen, for whom I have 

 the greatest respect, that any failures of adequate consultation 

 with either or both of you and others who are interested will be 

 remedied if I have an5rthing to do about it. We will consult very 

 closely with you as this bill proceeds, if it does proceed. 



Mr. Peterson. Thank you. 



Mr, Farr. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? 



Mr. Peterson. Briefly. We have a lot of panels here, and we 

 probably ought to move on. 



Mr. Farr. Right, and I am sorry. 



Mr. Thomas of California. We need to get our constituents up 

 here. 



Mr. Farr. One question. Mr. Thomas, I just read the bill. It is 

 rather short. It is only 25 pages. 



Some of the difficulty I have with your testimony is that it seems 

 that the bill incorporates an awful lot of the issues that you say 

 have failed to be addressed. I mean, what it does is it creates an 

 advisory board. The advisory board has to have public hearings and 

 to set up plans for reimbursing the community for allowing graz- 

 ing, for allowing payments to local governments, for allowing tim- 

 ber cutting, for fire management plans. It would allow timber cut- 

 ting for scientific purposes. 



It seems to me where the difficulty is here is that you have gone 

 through a mediated settlement which is to expire and that this 

 process tries to incorporate the issues in that mediated settlement 

 for a long-range management plan of an ecosystem rather than just 

 a timber harvesting plan. 



What I fail to see from your testimony or hear from your testi- 

 mony is the recognition that the bill does try to incorporate an 

 awful lot of the controversies that you indicate have not even been 

 discussed. 



Mr. Thomas of California. Mr. Farr, none of us are naive here, 

 and if you give me the opportunity to structure the result by hav- 

 ing already determined the conclusion and then allow for various 

 boards to meet and discuss structures, you have already won. 



The problem with the people who are pushing this legislation is 

 that the current process is open ended, that we do not know the 

 end result, that it will be an honest scientific endeavor to deter- 

 mine it, and they do not like that risk. What this legislation does 

 is lock in the conclusion and then let people play. 



Mr. Farr. How does it do that? 



Mr. Thomas of California. By the definition of a preserve and ex- 

 cluding those opportunities. 



You can give me a commission after you have passed this legisla- 

 tion, and I can show you failed result after failed result when the 

 conclusion has already been reached. What is wrong with keeping 

 the process open? That is my question. That is what we currently 

 have. 



