Scott Klug: “If there is no subsidy involved in this program, why are they fighting so hard to preserve it? And if there is no…”

“If there is no subsidy involved in this program, why are they fighting so hard to preserve it? And if there is no implication whatsoever if we eliminate it, then they should not be fighting to eliminate it. That is the bottom line in this whole debate. And let us make the very point that the Dicks amendment, which is before us as well, essentially cuts the savings in the Porter amendment in half. So, if one person is trying to save double and we cut it in half, then obviously there is somehow money involved in this program in the first place, and that is the simple mistake. Now my friend from South Dakota made the point to say that essentially the mission of many of us who are in support of the Porter amendment is to eliminate timber sales in national forests. That is simply not true. My fundamental point of view is not to eliminate timber sales, but it is to make money on timber sales in national forests, which it seems to me a very fundamental Republican principle.”