Date: 1983-10-21
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. colleagues. yesterday I presented remarks dealing with H.R. 1149. thle Oregon wilderness bill. before a committee of the Senate. While many of those points were considered during House debate of this remarkably outof -proportion bill. I was given the opportunity to also present viewpoints from the people of my Second Congressional District of Oregon. A contingent of citizens. on behalf of their neighbors in Oregon and in the interest of injecting commonsense in this bill while it is in the Senateafter being denied that chance while the bill was herecompiled local perspectives which I have incorporated in the testimony. My first purpose for addressing you today is to offer my heartfelt thanks and to identify each of these fine citizens for their tireless work. without compensation. in the pursuit of justice In the legislative process. They include Union County Cornmissioner Marie Lester. Baker County Judge Larry Smith. Umatilla County Commission Chairman Bob TenEyck. Wallowa County Chamber of Commerce representative Gerry Perren. Tomi LaHaye and John Bush. both with U.S. Gypsum in Pilot Rock. Mike McClean of Brooks Minerals. also representing the Oregon Mine Operators Association. Scott Horngren of Northwest Pine. John Smith of Southern Oregon Timber Industries. Don Stonehill of the Oregon Snowmobile Association.. and King Williams. representing both the Blue Mountain Resources Council and Oregon Cattlemen. My second purpose is to share their work with you. While I realize that It Is not possible to enter all of their prepared testimony into this RECORD. I would like to enter my own. in which I have incorporated many examples of the highly valuable perspective they have provided. While I wish that wehad been afforded the time and opportunity to accomplish this kind of study before House consideration of H.R. 1149. I firmly believe that it is not too late to make sense of this bill. Following is the testimony which I vo presented to the Senate Committee on th Energy and Natural Resources: Ito Mr. Chairman. members of the commit- be tee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak ac bcfore you today as you deliberate House p bill H.R. 1149. the Oregon Wilderness Act of0 1983. ti On behalf of my constituents. I want to d thank you for the time and effort you in- Ti vested In field hearings In Oregon. At the same time. I want to point out that seated t behind me here today are a dozen communityminded Oregonians who have traveled t across thle country on the promise that they t. would be given thle chance to present testin mony. Because of timeor whatevercon- t straints. they have been denied that oppor- J tunity. a I will try to present as many viewsas possible. but I ask that the committee carefully 01 consider any and all written testimony from d this contingent.b My purpose for being here Is. as many ofb the Oregonians who spoke to you before. to urge that you reject this bill.0 It would be extremely difficult in the limv ited time I have available to explain just ex- n actly why this bilparticularly at the mag- t. nitude proposed hereis both unwelcome n and opposed by nearly threefourths of Second District constituents. But let me t start by saying that the creation of more t than a million acres of new wilderness in r Oregon would have deep and serious Impact a on thle States economic and social fabric. Ten years worth of study were invested In a the Forest Services RARE I and RARE II reports by thle Forest Service. The Servicet suggested that iess than 400.000 of Oregonsj existing 3.4 million roadless acres be devot0 ed to wilderness. President Carter. considered by most to be highly sympathetic to environmentalist concerns. suggested only 330.000 of these acres he devoted to wilderness. Oregons Governor Victor Atlyeh suggests 118.000 acres. Yet before you today is a bill passed by the House of Representatives that calls for devotion of 1.2 million acres of new wilderness. I Join my neighbors in finding this an outlandish. unsupported and unjustified amount. To the best of my knowledge. no one has ever explained the criteria for choosing the size of this package or the specific areas within it. By all appearances. wilderness advocates chose 1.2 million acres arbitrarily and used a dart to select which 1.2 million to propose. Many of the proposed areas for wilderness designation In this package do not even meet minimum criteria established for designation as contained in the 1964 Wilderness Act. Many of the Yegions selected have little or no appeal to the tourist. backpacker or outdoorsman. Some overlook highways: some are so close to thle existing wilderness or park -areas that they might never be used. There was little or no chance for comimunity input as this bill sailed through the House early this year. These fine Oregonians behind me have. independently. studied thle bills contents with local perspective. to give you an idea of what it really means to Oregon and Oregons people. Even more disturbing about this bill is the fact that there was no need to rush to judgment. The fact is that we are here in this room today simply because of the hollow threats of a handful of environmental enthusiasts. shaking the stick of a potential lawsuit over our heads. I submit that there are better ways to conduct the business of the Nation than this. The opinions I offer to you today are both my own and my constituents. They are the ices of Oregon who are dissatisfied with mi is attempt to set aside more than a mil- lat n acres of land for the desires of a few. I ch leve it is up to us as Representatives to sti t In the interests of the majority of all the ople. st Let me emphasize that the people of an regon are not opposed to setting aside por- TI ons of this magnificent state for the wil- fo mness enjoyment of generations to come. p~ hey know and have long understood that e are a state rich In natural beauty. and fe tat where practical we should be assuring er tat beauty to those who come after us. at But Oregon has already contributed more in tan a million and a quarter acres to wilder- fe ess. We know what wilderness contributes cm the economics of the State. and w6 have ti istified our livelihoods around the existing ai reas. ci We also know what wilderness areas cost a ur economy. And we are not ready to d ouble that wilderness with passage of this ci ill. h I want to point out to you that in recent reeks. Oregon Governor Atiyeh embarked C n a dramatic. sweeping new economic de- d elopment program in an attempt to create t ew jobs. There Is significant dispute about 0 his bills Impact on Oregon jobs. The d umber of Jobs lost to Oregonians is estimiated to be in the thousands. I will be first o admit that no one is certain how many r housands. But the fact that such a figure is tot already part of this study should give us warning flag. In the very first place. it is silly to act onr Lny bill that has then potential to cost emt iloyment even while we are doing everyt hing we can in this Congress to create new f obs. At the very least. Whether you favor mr oppose wilderness itself. it Is bad public )olicy to pass legislation without some Idea Af what It will do. Since the sponsors of this bill refused to allow the time or the opportunity for that analysis. and since it became increasingly clear that Congress would not take the Job on itself. I asked the people of my congressional districtwho will be forced to live with the results of this Congress deliberationsto do their ownanalyses. I think this is a rational way of doing bu3iness. These are the people who live with and near the existing vast wilderness areas and are wellequipped to determine their impact on the economy. their way of life and the wildlife and habitat we purport to preserve. They know the terrain in question and the potential for benefit in proposed wilderness areas. What I present to you today represents honest and extremely valuable objective opinions about the wilderness proposals contained in H.R. 1149: where they are appropriate and where they are not. A good share of that appropriateness has to do with your understanding of just what a wilderness is and just what the alternatives to wilderness are. These folks brought plenty of perspective with them. Everyone in this room recognizes that the creation of new wilderness regions Is a matter of national interest. not just Oregons. The opinions brought to us from Oregon reflect that interest honestly and forthrightly. Sometimes what is obvious to many. of us is not obvious to all 0** and it shouid be. For Instance. what is wilderness and what can you do with it? Most Importantly. what can not you do with it? To use the terminology of the wilderness act Itself. it is "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man. where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." Later In the act. "there shall be no temporary road. no use of motor vehicles. otorized equipment or motorboats. no nding of aircraft. no other form of meanical transport and no structure or In. allation within any such area." it is clear that the law Itself Is the most ringent set of rules ever to be applied to ty public lands in the histbry of mankind. h~at was the intention-. and that is just fine r those who are hearty enough to backLck in and backpack out. But we should also remember that very w Americans can afford the experience of ijoying a true wildernessin terms of the ge and condition of health necessary to get or out. or the wcalth In equipment or prossional helpers to get around those physial restrictions. most especially the restricon on use of motorized equipment. The reas we create for the enjoyment of Ameniins are effectively closed off to the elderly ad the handicapped. If we tried to place a e facto prohibition on any other public faility In the land. we would be In the courtouse faster than you could say wiiderness. There are already Indications that thle tray Panthers. representing Americas elerly -community. may bring suit against his government based on their denial to use f the millions of acres of public land now esignated as wilderness. Without roads. very few working families il11 find opportunity to use the wilderness egions we are creating highly prohibitive. if tossible at all. As recreational areas. wilder. tess is the worst possible designation we ould offer. Existing studies in Oregons curent wilderness regions show that most of he visits take place within a very small disance of existing trails. and that they are ar from being used to capacity. Much better recreational uses are made on the multipurpose lands available. the national forests and parks. where sound land management practices are in place. At this point. let me say something about the visions many of you have of wilderness. The most common conception of a wilderness area is the image of a quiet forest with a crystalclear stream passing through where the elk and the deer forage undistrubed. Food is plentiful. nature provides bountiful and unchecked good for all. That pucture Is not any more true wilderness than most of the other Hollywood Images we deal with every day. True wildernessthe kind you want to create with this billis untidy at best and downright savage at Its worst. It Is a land to. tially outside the control or management of mankind. It Is what our forefathers tamed to carve a great nation. Anyone who has ever been in the middle of true wilderness can tell you of the fury of nature unleashed. Wilderness is totally devoid of human management. And. believe it or not. there are plenty of places when human management can be better for nature than nature Itself. There is no better place to demonstrate that fact than In the North Fork of the John Day River area proposed for wilderness designation. Within the 208.000 acres of the North Fork area. 60 miles from the U.S. Gypsum Fiberboard plant in Pilot Rock. Oreg.. nature has been given virtual free reign except where Gypsum plant employees have conducted salvage operations since 1976. In an everwidening circle around the plant. U.S. Gypsum has been cleaning the forests of dead and dying lodgepole pinetimber killed by beetles. primarilyand ingeniously using this as their primary raw material. There are still 40.000 acres of lodgepole pine left to be harvested in the North Fork area: enough to keep the plant with its 182 employees and its $3.5 million annual payroll the towns major industry for years to come. The economic penalties that the town of Pilot Rock (population: 1.400) will suffer by placement of the North Fork of John Day in wilderness Is obvious. Less obvious is the penalty that nature herself will Impose If wilderness is granted here. The lodgepole has been there for more than a decade. Every year. more of it falls to the ground where it rots and those that have not fallen yet dries. Both present very natural. but extremely volatile potential for nature unchecked. The deadwood that rots. particularly In amounts as great as the beetlekills provide. breed infestation and disease. Both of those conditions can quickly spread to good timber nearby. in or out of wilderness. As the wood dries. it provides the best fuel found in the world for fire. It is estimated that every acre of lodgepole pine holds the potential of up to 100tons of fuel. roughly the equivalent of the first atomic bomb exploded In World War 11. Imagine the fire that can be created with 40.000 acres of that fuel. a lightning storm and a little wind. In 1961. the Bitter Root National Forest in Montana. also filled with lodgepole remaining from a beetlekill in the 1930s. burned uncontrolled for 10 straight days before weather put it out. It was well beyond the ability of man to put out. Lodgepole stand fires burn with a fierce intensity. so fierce. in fact. that It destroys all organic materials in the forest. leaving behind ashes similar to those created with the eruption of Mount St. Helens which not only wont sustain life. but are decidedly toxic. The ashes slip into streams. causing significant fishkills. But even without fire. the deadwood often falls into those same streams where fish migration is blocked. water quality rapidly deteriorates and soil erosion can become devastating. Where it falls on the ground. the undergrowth that feeds the rodents that feed the big game. the very start of thle natural food chain. is killed. Human management. in this case U.S. Gypsum. clearing away the potential fuel of fire and pestilence. turns out to be better for wildlife than nature Itself. The added bonus Is obvious: we have helpedl nature and created Jobs for ourselves from natures waste product.If it Is not cleared away. the North Fork area is a timebomb ticking well into the next century. The North Fork is not alone. the same beetlekill hit many of Oregons forests and roadless areas under consideration here. We could conceivably designate them as wilderness today and lose them tomorrow. Who would it benefit then? While I am discussing forest management. I ask you to consider what happens in the best of circumstances: when there is no fire and no infestation. only the unchecked growth of forests in pature. Simply said. the trees grow until they grow into one another at thle top. They create a dense canopy that can prevent sunlight from even reaching the ground. At that point. the undergrowth that provides nourishment to so much of the forests wildlife begins to disappear. Then the wildiife begins to disappear. or at the very least. to need more and more acreage to sustain itself. The myth exists. and its perpetuated. that timber harvests necessarily lead to the destruction and displacement of all that is natural. Specifically. you will hear that the steeihead salmon is jeopardized by lumberIng operations. Wilderness advocates here today will point to the reduced catches of steelhead salmon In Oregon and tell you it is the result of big. bad timber compinies. Keep in mind that in recent years the Alaskan salmon Industry has taken command from the continental U.S. Pacific Northwest. that demand has remained relatively constant for the product. and that reduced takes In Oregon were caused by decisions by Oregon producers. I assure you. the salmon are still there even after years of lumrbering operations. They have managed to flourish over all these years and we expect them to continue to do so. most often with improved opportunity to survive because of the management of resources by humans. This management. by the way. might well surprise you in its efficiency. This Congress needs to realize that we are no longer the America of the- 19th century. willing to buy todays industrial prosperity by cashing in and ravaging tomorrows resources. Todays forest management is premised on the U.S. Forest Services solid resolution to preserve and protect. And it Is based on the timber Industrys own programs for timely and planned harvest. In the knowledge that what they do not protect today will never produce for them tomorrow. H.R. 1149 does not take these factors into consideration. Nor. in the Coleman Rim Area of Lake County. for instance. does the bill consider that the wilderness proposed includes an area of 40 percent high..and an additional 38 percent very high yield timber land. In the same county. the Fremont National Forest by comparison. Is rated at only 28 percent high yield. I asked the people behind me to give me their own perspective on the bill. and much that I have noted so far has come from their painstaking research in their own home areas. Maybe we should mention what they are facing. Today. fully 52 percent of the State of Oregons land is owned by. controlled by. or managed by the Federal Government. Indeed. there are vast stretches of Idle. roadless. nearly impassable land. But It Is land for which there are plenty of potential Uses. Most productive of those uses are timber production and agricultural. In the northeast corner of the State. in Wallowa County. we. meaning the U.S. Government. have already set asside more than 350.000 acres of wilderness. nearly 30 percent of all the wilderness region in the entire State and fully onethird of all U.S. forests In that county. I should not need to remind each member of this committee what it means to have land on Uncle Sams tab. It means no property taxes. nothing to help build and maintain roads or schools. except what Uncle Sam wants to toss your way. It means every private citizen In the county must contribute correspondingly mnore to the treasury to keep public functions underway. * Now it is time to talk about "fair share" and Jobs. The Wallowa County designation in H.R. 1149 would immediately take onesixth of the remaining multipleuse lands in the county out of the productive reach of Wallowa County residents. At thle same time. more and more stringent Forest Service decisions are paring back the allowable cut in productive stands. A recent sale In the La Grande Watershed. for instance. was limited to only 58 million board feet sold out of a potential of 118 million. While there is. and probably will continue to be. speculation about how many jobs will be lost to the wilderness designations contained in this bill. we can provide a solid denial of the claims that timber Jobs can be traded for tourism and recreation Jobs. Dr. Frederick Obermiller of Oregon State University. using 1981 economic activity statistics for Wallowa County. demonstrated the myth of the onefortheother propositions. Certainly. if any county will benefit by tourism and recreation activity. it should be a county with as high a concentration of wildernes as Wallowa. But Dr. Obermiller pointed out that recreation income ranked a distant third In Its contribution to the economy. Timber accounted for 21.8 percent of the Countys Income. Farming created another 18.5 percent. and recreation and tourism brought In only 6.4 percent of the total. Just as certainly. there are plenty of areas in our State where recreation and tourism contribute significant shares to the local economy. and plans arc underway for even more of those. But one of the longest to develop. and today one of the most promising. the Pelican Butte area 25 miles northwest of Klamath Falls which was to be a downhill ski area. Is close enough to proposed wilderness that access through or near closed regions could be become a serious hindrance to development. Yet another developmental promise. In Union County where hydroelectric power is being newly produced in amounts sufficient to share with adjacent states. access to damns vital to the operation stand to be either totally denied or limited to walkin. hand tool service. While we are on the subject of resource management. it is vital as well to talk about yet another resource we close off with this wilderness bill: minerals. Since 1979. the prices of raw minerals In the world have shot sky high and the availability of many has dwindled to create premium markets. The need for precious metals. as well as industrial and strategic minerals. has created a rush to Oregon unlike any since gold was discovered in the Cascades. Gold. silver. copper. tungsten. zinc. nickel. chromite. diatomite. mercury. even uranium. have been located In Oregon. But. In direct opposition to existing laws that demands full geological evaluation of all government lands for vital minerals. you are being asked here to turn over the gate keys to 1.2 million acres without ever having done a full evaluation. Considering that many of the most Important minerals we use today. including the strategic chromium we are forced to buy from the Soviet Union. and other foreign markets. It seems folly to abandon productive mining areas such as the Red Buttes of Jackscn and Josephine Counties and Its gold. silver. copper and chromite without even a thorough study. Josephine County in the southwest and Baker County in the northeast both hold an average of more than one active mineral claim per square mile. the highest density of activity in the State. yet Red Buttes Is proposed for iockup to wilderness. Sn are strawberry. north and south areas with gold and chromite and glacier monument areas. With a similar disregard for the extremely high levels of investment necessary simply for exploration and Identification of critical mineral deposits. many of the proposals In H.R. 1149 which dont directly settle on top of mines settle so close to them that full development will be an impossible chore. Members of the committee. the perspeetive I have tried to offer here today can all be found. individually and welldocumented. in the testimony of the Oregon neighbors behind me here today who have not been given the opportunity to speak. I urge that October 21. 1.983 you carefully review the work they have done. and that you pay heed to the need to extensively revise this bill based on the common sense and the very personal and community concerns they share with us. Certainly. their findings are far more comprehensive than any analyses yet provided to the Congress. And they are far more eloquent than any of my attempts to compact them In my limited time before you here today. These are the people who must live with the consequences of your actions. They have come here in the spirit of reluctant compromise. to offer some rhyme and reason to a broadening of wilderness in Oregon. if wilderness must be broadened. Their documents contain restricted. alternative proposals that deserve. I believe. to be the starting point for any final Oregon Wilderness bill. I ask you to compare their cooperative approach with any other you see or hear today. They are trying to help in a realistic way. by offering you an escape from the allornothing attitude on either side of this question. They deserve the greatest attention you can provide. By way of summary. though. please allbw me to close with these thoughts. First: Not enough time. study or effort has been Invested by this Congress on the question of the econonuc impact of this broad bill. If you cannot say how much it will cost In jobs or human anguish. you cannot. In good conscience. approve H.R. Second: There Is no compelling reason to rush to action today. Yes. there Is a strong desire on the part of every resident of Oregon to have this matter settled. But not at the price of a potentially devastating quick fix with such a lopsided resolution. Third: Not all natural remedies are good. not all developmental solutions are bad. I urge you to consider the extensive good for Nature that can be found in proper land management. and at the same time. the extensive potential for destruction that Is Nature In her times of wrath. Fourth: All of the tools that are needed for cnmplete. proper multipleuse management of every one of these wilderness proposal areas already exist with the Forest Service. No new people or dramatically Innovative plans would be needed to make these areas recreationally utilized or accessible to handicapped. elderly or limitedvacation time families. Fifth: A fit of "environmentalism" today may cost us strategic energy and mineral resources for the future If we lock more than a million acres away in a vault and throw away the key. Last: I want to leave you with at thought that comes from an old western fable. Its something that you can think about when the temptation roiis across to vote with once- fashilonable trends instead of common senseThe fable is about a little bird. winging south with the flock for the winter. One morning. after a rest from his long Journey. he woke to find that it had turned bitter cold the night before and the bird was nearly frozen stiff. As hie lay there. close to death. a cowboy rode by on a cattle drive. Seeing the little bird shivering to death. he picked him up and stuck himright up to the beakIi a fresh and steaming cow pie. The cowboy then rode on to catch up with the herd. Well. after a little while. the warmth of the cow Pie did its work. The little bird started to regain his strength. And he was so happy. he started to chirp at the top of his lungs. Not far away. a hungry coyote heard the chirp. le followed It to the little bird. plucked him from the cow pie and ate him. Naturally. there Is a moral to the story. Just as there is in all fables. And since this Is an Oregon fable. there Is really three morals. The first Is: Not everybody who put you In the pie Is your enemy. The second is: Not everybody who Pulls you out of the pie Is your friend. And the third. very important moral Is When you are up to your beak in it. do not sing. All Is not as it might first appear. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you.