16 



the right thing to do without sorting out any of those things, to 

 plop down 442,000 acres right now and say this is off Umits to any- 

 thing, irrespective of what happens in the rest of Sierra Nevadas 

 vis-a-vis all these other contentious things that are coming up? I 

 don't think so. 



Mr. Farr. Well, as you know, politics is the art of compromise, 

 and there is certainly some compromise in this arena. But the bill 

 is worthy of note to discuss this issue because of such abuse that 

 has gone on, and the question is whether the settlement agreement 

 is better than the legislation. 



Mr. Rose. Can I interject here, off the record? 



[Comments off the record.] 



Mr. Lehman. I just gave you the numbers on what the current 

 cuts are and the debate we are having out there over how to man- 

 age all the forests in California at the present time. I think this 

 ought to be dealt with in that context. 



Mr. Fare. How is your bill going to differ from this bill? 



Mr. Lehman. Well, the bill I am working on — and I had hoped 

 I would have it by today, but we are not quite ready — will deal 

 with the whole forest in California from a holistic standpoint, not 

 from one species at a time. We are not saving any species, either, 

 not from one stand of trees at a time, not by setting up corridors 

 or preserves all over the place; by getting real scientific evaluation 

 of what the forest needs to be healthy and support all the uses that 

 society and our culture want to get from it. 



This does none of those. This just says we are going to let one 

 side that does not want an5rthing to happen here at all on this huge 

 land area, adjacent to areas that we have already set aside, lock 

 it up in that fashion. 



You know, maybe some of this area ought to be treated dif- 

 ferently, but this bill or this approach does not do it. Like I said, 

 I think it would be more straightforward to say we ought to do a 

 new wilderness bill in California rather than to come out with this 

 hodgepodge of legislation to preserve this over here, set this aside 

 over there, with no overall plan except to gradually diminish the 

 land base available for other uses. 



Mr. Farr. I have no further questions. 



Mr. Peterson [assuming chair]. Mr. Doolittle. 



Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I have a pre- 

 pared statement for the record, then some questions. 



[The prepared statement of lilr. Doolittle follows:] 



Prepared Statement of Hon. John T. Doolittle, a Representative in 

 Congress From the State of California 



Mr. Chairman, today the committee is considering legislation, the Giant Sequoia 

 National Forest Preserve Act, which would: Cost the Federal Government $10 mil- 

 lion it doesn't have; cost State and local governments $2 million they don't have; 

 cost jobs the State can't absorb; eliminate fire control practices, creating a 442,000- 

 acre fire trap which could result in tremendous losses to the giant sequoias the bill 

 is supposed to preserve; and leaves the rights of private property owners within the 

 preserve in doubt. 



Why? So we can protect giant sequoias already protected by Presidential procla- 

 mation. 



Mr. Chairman, I am certain that today's hearing will demonstrate that this legis- 

 lation is not only flawed, but inappropriate in times of recession and deficit spend- 

 ing. 



