David Obey: “I understand the passion that we see on both sides of this issue. I simply want to say that I understand the good…”

“I understand the passion that we see on both sides of this issue. I simply want to say that I understand the good intentions of the gentleman who offers the amendment. He is very concerned about a very important cluster of programs. But I think the problem we face here tonight is that we are seeing efforts to move very small amounts of money around from one program to another. It sort of depends on what kind of district you come from, whether you think that is a good idea or not. If you come from a district like mine, which is heavily dependent upon a broad understanding of multiple use, so that forest lands are used for economic production, so that they are used for recreation, so that they are used for wildlife, we have one view of this amendment. If one comes from a different kind of district, one has quite another. I would urge Members to oppose the amendment because we are not going to fix the wildlife problems in this country by taking a few million dollars out of the forestry program. The real problem is that we need more money in all of these programs. We had a good excuse not to put that money there when we had huge deficits, but now we do not. So it seems to me that we need a more aggressive forest management. We need much greater investments in wildlife. We have a huge backlog in maintenance for our parks and our forests.”