■ ' ■ I ' 6, 



just about everyone: the timber industry, environmental groups, 

 the State of California, the livestock industry, and various rec- 

 reational groups. 



Instead of proceeding with their appeals, a mediation process 

 was agreed upon, and if this sounds familiar in terms of a model 

 of the desert plan, it is very familiar to a number of us. What hap- 

 pens is you bring these various interest groups together, you sit 

 them down, and you begin negotiating the process of accommoda- 

 tion and compromise to reach what is the mediated settlement 

 agreement. 



That agreement fully protects the giant sequoia, and I think you 

 will hear testimony from experts and professionals who not only 

 know a lot but have devoted their professional careers to making 

 sure that the giant sequoia is protected. As you might guess, that 

 kind of process is not an easy one. There are opportunities for give 

 and take. 



Unfortunately, some folks left the table. They walked away, and 

 they did what has been done in the past. They attempted to take 

 their vision, put it into legislation, and move their vision without 

 participating in the fundamental democratic process of give and 

 take. 



Those who worked on the mediated settlement put in long hours 

 attempting to reach an agreement that would accommodate inter- 

 ests but fundamentally preserve the giant sequoias. They signed off 

 on the agreement not because they got what they wanted, but be- 

 cause they understood what the process was supposed to be. 



If we then enact this legislation, we not only throw away the me- 

 diated settlement, but we once again reinforce in the minds of 

 many that what you should do is not sit down and work out your 

 differences with competing interests to make sure that the fun- 

 damental purpose is to protect something, but that, rather, go find 

 some friends in Congress, introduce a piece of legislation, and hope 

 that you can ram it through the process so that your vision be- 

 comes reality. 



Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, when you consider the 

 costs involved in implementing this legislation, that you take a look 

 at not just the jobs that are going to be lost in an area that des- 

 perately needs them but also the direct costs to the Treasury. 



Comments were made that timber has been cut in terms of 

 'Taelow cost." Let me tell you that the accounting procedures devel- 

 oped by the Forest Service at the direction of Congress require that 

 two specific findings be made before a forest is considered to have 

 a below-cost sales program: First, the 3-year average net revenue 

 before pa5rments to the State must be negative; second, the 3-year 

 average long-term net benefits must also be negative. 



For two of the past 3 years, revenues generated by the Sequoia 

 National Forest timber program have exceeded the cost of the pro- 

 gram. I do not think you can argue that the timber sales have been 

 below cost. 



I do not have to tell you that in this economy, especially in Cali- 

 fornia, any jobs lost, any opportunities, especially if there is no rea- 

 son for losing them, are significant. 



The other problem, Mr. Chairman, is that the regional forester 

 implemented an interim management plan for the protection of the 



