William Bryan: “I must say I have difficulty following the arguments of my friend from Idaho. First, I have no objection to--in fact, I…”

“I must say I have difficulty following the arguments of my friend from Idaho. First, I have no objection to--in fact, I am very supportive of it--the amendment offered by Senator Domenici last week. That has to do with hazardous fuels reduction, $120 million going to the Forest Service, $120 million going to BLM. I am for that. As the Senator knows, that is a separate budget category entirely than the issue of the Bryan-Fitzgerald amendment. That is a subcategory of fire operations. What we are talking about is preparedness money, a totally different concept. The issue is not whether Lake Tahoe could be harmed. Lake Tahoe does not have a commercial harvest timber program as such. It is minimal. We are talking about the money that is necessary to do the hazardous fuels reduction. The Senator from Nevada is very supportive of that. The Senator from Nevada wants to see more money set aside for preparedness and planning which is cost effective. Let me, by way of an additional comment, point out that the program which the Senator from Nevada supports is cost effective; that is, it saves taxpayers dollars. It is a savings. The argument that the Senator from Idaho made refers to a program that has cost taxpayers, between 1992 and 1997, $2 billion. We are subsidizing them. I do not think that is a particularly good value. But even though I might not think it is a particularly good value, I have not sought to eliminate that program.”