But when you talk about fair, I think about my own folks.

We cannot do things as we have always done or we are going to get the same result.

What is fair is more Americans should get to keep more of their money.

I do not know quite how to say that--will be defending, right?

Should we be making sure that everything that we own right now is best maintained before we increase those acquisitions?

I would be happy with statewide information as well.

Do you envision ways or safeguards we can put into place if we were to create some sort of a trust fund?

I agree 100 percent with you that these are treasures, and where we can pull in these public-private partnerships, it is a win-win.

If we don't change the way that Federal lands are managed, it is going to impact State lands regardless.

Lewis County, like so many Washington State counties, was once a thriving timber community with thousands of timber jobs.

This is mostly for Commissioner Grose. I have two quick questions.

I made the point one way, using the quote that Governor Otter used quoting GAO, one way in my mind--I think we were spending around $300 million on the maintenance side and about $2 billion on the fire-fighting side.

I am honored to join this Committee for this very important hearing.

Thank you for your strong interest and support of Pearson Air Museum.

I mean is there a process that we can--where do I go--because I have been trying at those levels to fix this, and it is not working.

I mean it is--I almost wish our problems were with permitting, you know, the more onerous types of projects.

Well, this is one of the things I was told was, 'Well, maybe there is more sensitive environmental or tribal issues in this area, as compared to a different district.'

And let me jump in on that because I think you are right.

I don't think safety and our small business owners are mutually exclusive. I mean to assume that is irrational.

how the President calls this a $2 billion mandate and yet you are telling me it is $2 billion plus.

And kind of skipping over to a different question that since I have you here I wanted to bring up.

Action must be taken now to protect rural communities and private property from these burdensome regulations.

why then would you double down on an expanded critical habitat taking basically more private forest land if you're admitting that that species has not done well for the health of the owl, forest or the species?

Do you believe that the management of our forest for a single species has been beneficial for the health of our forests and the multiple species of wildlife within them?

As you know, President Obama has directed the Department of Interior to come up with an economic analysis of the spotted oil critical habitat that's due very shortly.