Tina Smith: “I rise to speak about a national forest that is not in my State, and of constituents who are not in the State of Oregon.…”

“I rise to speak about a national forest that is not in my State, and of constituents who are not in the State of Oregon. I do so because I see happening to my Alaskan colleagues and their constituents what I have witnessed for too many years in my own State of Oregon. As a predicate, I know the difference between environmentalists who make many good points, who have much to contribute, and, frankly, what I would term the ``environmental conflict industry.'' Others have used that term. If this amendment that is offered by my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, were really about saving money, it would be about streamlining costs associated with timber production as opposed to just an amendment that would effectively end any kind of multiple use in the Tongass National Forest. The truth is, the Tongass is an area as big as many States in the lower 48. It is a vast resource. The truth is also that each of us, as Americans, use many pounds of wood in our lives every day. The question before this Senate is whether we want to have timber come from our country with high environmental standards or from other countries where there are few, if any, environmental standards. Many complain about the way the harvest is done in Indonesia or in Brazil. Some of us even complain that the way Canada harvests, across the border from the Tongass, is done on the basis of tremendous amounts of subsidies. They are called crown lands.…”