390 



taken away. The value is added someplace else. Somebody else is 

 making all of the dough and we are left with depleted resources. 



So, I think that the idea that you put in here is certainly worth 

 our very careful consideration. If you have any further comment 

 you might want to add to that, I just thought it was very intrigu- 

 ing. 



Can I jump for a minute to the contract issue as well? Were we 

 to cancel the contracts, which as I have pointed out has been dis- 

 cussed, and in other national forests that was done in the 1950s 

 and 1960s, and maybe there were a couple held over that were 

 done in the early 1970s. If those contracts to be canceled, the ques- 

 tion is what kind of a transition period might get built in? Clearly, 

 we do not want to have both contracts stop here and then have a 

 period of time where there are no contracts between the Forest 

 Service and the timber industry. It is not anybody's intent at all to 

 have the whole timber industry stop dead. Therefore, we ought to 

 be looking at some kind of transitional language. I was wondering 

 if you know or any others, Mr. Privett, or others representing the 

 conference might have looked at that issue? Do you know of any- 

 body who thought about it or looked at that issue of the transition 

 period? 



Governor Cowper. I would defer to the Conference on that issue. 

 Senator. We have not directly considered that but maybe the Con- 

 ference has. 



Mr. Privett. No, we have not, Mr. Chairman. That is probably 

 one of the most terrifying things we could be thinking about at this 

 point. We tried to put it together in a document to continue to sal- 

 vage the contracts in some form. Most of those contracts run for 15 

 years, and one will be up in 20 years and the other one is up — 

 really, it is not a long period of time. 



Senator Wirth. I understand that. Unfortunately, it appears 

 from all of the documentation we have from the Forest Service 

 that those contracts and their long-term nature drives all of the 

 other decisions. Most of the decisions made by the Forest Service 

 have artificial variables that drive the way in which they manage 

 the forest, and that is why the whole point of the 4.5 billion target 

 and the contracts are of such concern, because they do tend to 

 skew all of the decision making. 



Just like. Governor Cowper, if we said, "Well, we are going to 

 make you governor, but 90 percent of your time has to be spent by 

 law in one area of the state." If the Constitution said that, he 

 would have to spend 90 percent of his time in one area of the state 

 and would not be allowed to do a lot of the other things that he at 

 his discretion would do were it not for that 90 percent requirement. 



It is not a perfect analogy by any means, but I just point that out 

 as illustrative of what the problem is by having those variables 

 within the requirements. That changes the nature of the Forest 

 Service and probably does not allow them to be thoroughly objec- 

 tive in the way in which they would view the national forest. 



Senator Burns. Would the senator yield? 



Senator Wirth. I would be happy to. 



Senator Burns. Senator Wirth — I thank you very much Mr. 

 Chairman, but I would ask Mr. Privett or the Governor, would you 

 agree, regarding these long-term contracts, would you agree that 



