Mr. Thomas of California. You are in the valley. The two of us 

 represent 100 percent, and we can argue over the percentage. I can 

 give you that information, but it is going to be a significant minor- 

 ity if it is not the majority. 



Mr. Rose. All right, so it will be in whose district? 



Mr. Thomas of California. The two of ours, right here. 



Mr. Rose. Lehman and Thomas? 



Mr. Thomas of California. Yes. 



Mr. Rose. All right, thank you. Ck) ahead. 



Mr. Thomas of California. And if you will take the two testi- 

 monies delivered by both of us and combine them, you will have 

 100 percent of the forest. 



Mr. Rose. Thank you. 



Mr. Thomas of California. I am opposed to the legislation, and 

 I am opposed to it because it is unnecessary. Right now, today, 

 even without the so-called protections afforded by this bill, the only 

 threats to the giant sequoia are entirely natural: Fire, wind, insect 

 infestation, and old age. And we know, by the way, that as a spe- 

 cies they have perhaps evolved into a magnificent device to protect 

 against all of those, and that is one of the reasons they are able 

 to achieve the old age that they do. 



The giant sequoia is currently protected by Forest Service regula- 

 tions. Presidential proclamation, and the 1990 mediated settlement 

 agreement of the Sequoia National Forest land management plan. 



In addition, although the jobs and job opportunities would not 

 seem large by big-city standards, this bill would have a negative 

 impact on jobs and opportunities in Tulare County, and in addition 

 to that, it would impose a direct cost on all taxpayers. 



Mr. Chairman, I would look forward to any and all testimony in- 

 dicating that existing protections are in any way inadequate or in- 

 sufficient. The mediated settlement agreement prohibits not only 

 the logging of giant sequoias themselves but also prohibits the cut- 

 ting of any timber within 1,000 feet of a giant sequoia. 



This bill would take, as I said, over 442,000 acres of land in the 

 Sierra and Sequoia National Forests and turn it into a preserve, 

 where no timber cutting of any kind would be allowed. Grazing 

 would be banned within 10 years, although there is no indication 

 that livestock operations have had any impact on the giant sequoia. 



Access either by motorized or nonmotorized means would also be 

 restricted. Current recreational uses — camping, hunting, fishing, 

 hiking — would be curtailed. Limitations on access would effectively 

 close off large areas of this preserve that are currently utilized by 

 visitors. 



The question remains, why? Unfortunately, not that the current 

 structure for protecting the giant sequoia is inadequate. If that 

 were the case, this subcommittee would be categorizing and pre- 

 senting evidence to support that contention. 



The supporters of the legislation, I believe, cannot make that ar- 

 gument. Instead, this legislation represents their vision of what re- 

 ality should be and their desire to impose that vision on the rest 

 of society. 



In order to understand how we got to this hearing room today, 

 I think we have to go back to 1988 and the land management plan 

 and when it was adopted. The plan was immediately challenged by 



