William Bryan: “I was somewhat astounded by the debate because those who oppose the amendment try to frame an issue that is not part of…”

“I was somewhat astounded by the debate because those who oppose the amendment try to frame an issue that is not part of our discussion or our amendment today. I think in so doing they are trying to obfuscate the issues we are dealing with. This amendment is not about eliminating all timber harvests on the national forests. That may be an appropriate subject for a debate on another day. But there is not one word in this amendment that would have that effect or seeks to accomplish that purpose. The other argument that has been made to obfuscate the issues is somehow a suggestion that there is an attempt here to eliminate all new road construction in the national forests. That is not true as well. We have crafted this amendment to protect and to hold the counties who receive revenue from this program to hold them harmless. We do so by saying, look, in the bid that is offered by the prospective timber harvest bidder, that we factor a separate amount that would be attributable to the construction component and use that, as well as the bid price, in the calculation to determine what moneys will go to the individual counties that will be affected. So we were sensitive to the needs of the individual counties that would be affected and this amendment holds them harmless.”