Steven Holt: “I rise in support of the environmentally and fiscally wise amendment from my colleague from New Jersey, my colleague…”

“I rise in support of the environmentally and fiscally wise amendment from my colleague from New Jersey, my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), and my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). The Wu-Smith-Udall amendment adds, as we have heard, $14.7 million to the fish and wildlife management line of the Forest Service. Yes, both of the programs that we are talking about here are important, but what we want to do is to establish some balance. How did this come about? The administration requested $220 million for the forest products account, what used to be called timber harvest, and the committee gave the Forest Service $245 million, an increase of $25 million above what the agency requested. Meanwhile, the committee funded the valuable wildlife and fish habitat management accounts $14.7 million below the administration request. Now, fish and wildlife management sorely needs an increase in funding. Of course, they both do. For years, this fish and wildlife program has been underfunded. At the forest level, biologists are scarce and are involved in planning and NEPA work and are frequently unable to do the on-the-ground work that needs to be done. Now on the other hand, there is evidence that the Forest Service timber program is not cost effective. According to the GAO, the program costs the American taxpayer over $2 billion from 1992 to 1997.”