I frankly think it is not enough.

But to suggest that the Administration is not focused on those issues as a major priority would be a complete injustice.

I think it is short of perhaps what we are going to need to do in a very aggressive way in the future.

I recognize that this comes from deep in the bowels of the Office of Management and Budget, where they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

We have got to adequately fund firefighting and fire suppression and preparedness, and this is not the case in these budgets.

It is not the right choice to de-fund United Tribes Technical College.

I am deeply concerned with the way the administration has prioritized its scarce resources.

the folks in Minot, North Dakota, and northwestern North Dakota are really upset, and that is a mild way of saying it, upset about the proposal not to fund NAWS.

I mean, there is no excuse for what the Office of Management and Budget has done.

The Forest Service is not a good neighbor, and when you have got an infestation of 30,000 or 40,000 acres of leafy spurge and you do not control them, what happens is, everyone else who is on the periphery of the Forest Service land is…

But the Federal Government said: 'No, no. We will give you some benefits.' And we said: 'All right. That is a fair trade,' except we got the flood but never quite got all the benefits.

You know, Montana and North Dakota did not rush to Washington to ask if we could host some floods in reservoirs and so on.

What has happened in this budget, at least with respect to this project, is fundamentally wrong.

I think tribal colleges are remarkably successful.

I will do that. Careful what you ask for.

It is very important to make the right choices. And I think Indian education is very important.

But the distinction here is you are using the word 'program,' not project. The OMB described this program as not meeting certain goals. It made no such judgment about this project. Is that not correct?

We want this funded. We want it funded now.