31 



be happy to accompany the gentleman if my schedule permits. I 

 like to go out as often as I can. 



Mr. Taylor. Good. 



Mr. Vento. Unfortunately, my constituents look at it as a vaca- 

 tion, not as work. So I have got a lot of places to go, as the gen- 

 tleman would be I think impressed by the schedule of activities of 

 where I have gone and what I have done in terms of not just in 

 your area but around the globe. 



Mr. Taylor. I would love to have the gentleman as a guest and 

 make a bipartisan release that this is a working trip and not a va- 

 cation. 



Mr. Vento. OK. We will try and do that sometime. 



Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Vento. We will try to put something together. 



Mr. Hansen, [presiding] Let me just say to our friend from North 

 Carolina that in my own opinion, Mr. Vento, he did a super job yes- 

 terday and did a great job in identifying and pointing out the prob- 

 lems as myself and Mr. Taylor see them, maybe not exactly like 

 our friend from Minnesota sees them. I understand there are two 

 others that would like to question Mr. Taylor. Mrs. Chenoweth, do 

 you have something for our colleague from North Carolina? 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I just very 

 much appreciate the Congressman for being here. He has a great 

 understanding of this issue, great experience, and I have learned 

 a lot from him. 



Mr. Hansen. I associate myself with your remarks. I think his 

 understanding probably exceeds 99 percent of our colleagues. The 

 gentleman from California. 



Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taylor, in your open- 

 ing statement you made a comment about how when we build a 

 road or a bridge that you call in the engineers, and they design the 

 bridge. And there may be a public debate over whether or not it 

 is good public policy to build the bridge, but you don't have law- 

 suits and uneducated people or untrained people fighting over how 

 the bridge should be designed, that that is a matter of science, that 

 that is a matter of proper structural engineering. 



And yet when we get into decisions such as the Forest Service 

 and timber sales, it seems to me that many times we abandon 

 what science is telling us is proper. And I think that you alluded 

 to that in your opening statement. And I would like you to expand 

 on that just briefly, if you wouldn't mind. 



Mr. Taylor. Well, as the gentleman has paraphrased somewhat 

 what I said, when we build a road, we have public hearings, and 

 we welcome public input as to whether or not we will build the 

 road, whether or not it is cost-effective, the various questions in- 

 volved. 



Once we have made the decision to build it, then, as you pointed 

 out, we don't have members who are not engineers, know nothing 

 about engineering standing there with the engineers. He figures 

 the weights on the bridge and constructs the bridge to 

 micromanaging that bridge construction because we know that we 

 have science in this area. We turn that over to trained people. 



And as we pointed out, forestry, silviculture is a science. It is a 

 science that is taught by our best universities — have schools of for- 



