Date: 1983-03-21
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman. well. this is a desperate situation that Oregon is in and it should be a desperate situation that this Congress is in. We are talking here now about the future of the timber industry not only in Oregon but the timber supply for this country as well. Now we are on a sustained yield program in Oregon and have been for a very long time. We are not talking about Jeopardizing the opportunity to grow timber or jeopardizing recreationalists or the fishing industry. we are talking here about a reasonable method of operation that we may use in the future to provide jobs. to provide recreation. to provide fishing and for the whole multiple use purpose idea. You know. I know that you are confused about this issue of jobs and I can understand that. because one side says this is an antijobs bill. the other side says that this is a projobs bill. But let me ask you this question: If this did not cost Oregon jobs. why are these people opposing it? The United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America. the AFLCIO Building Trades Department. the Western Council of Lumber. Production & Industrial Workers of America. International Woodworkers Council of America. AFLCIO. Western States Regional Council. I suggest to you if there were not jobs at stake why are these people opposing this bill? Now. there is precedent for this amendment and the precedent frankly is here. The 96th and 97th Congresses have already established the kinds of program that this amendment addresses itself to and. in fact. in the 96th and 97th Congresses they provide for release in the States of Alaska. Colorado. New Mexico. Missouri. Indiana. and West Virginia. just like this amendment would propose. Now. I suggest to you again that we are fighting for our lives and fighting for Oregonians lives. Oregon is one of the 15 States in the Union impacted mostly by unemployment. We are in a desperate situation and we need jobs and we want to keep jobs that we have. I suggest to you that this is not the last time you are going to see wilderness proposed in Oregon or any place else in this country. Because very soon this Congress is going to be faced with another 2.6 million acres of land in Oregon by the Department of Interior with a question: "Do you want more wilderness in Oregon?" Not just 1.2 heaven forbid. were to pass. that million acres as suggested in the bill would kill the bill. and itwould also be but another 2.6 million acres in considered to be one of the most anOregon. And I suggest to you that we tienvironmental votes as well as the cannot stand that. most antiJobs votes that we could posNow. I have just received a report of sibly cast in this kind of a context. So. the people that I suggested earlier to the gentleman Is absolutely right. This you that I had consulted with In bill is a projobs bill but with this Oregon. There are 17.000 respondents. amendment it Would be both an an72 percent of those people who have tienvironment and an antijobs bill. responded already. are opposed to The CHAIRMAN. The question is on more wilderness in Oregon. How can the amendment in the nature of a Sub. you disregard the wishes of my district stitute offered by the gentleman from and my constituents? Oregon .