I rise in opposition to the Montana wilderness bill. Its purpose really is to do two things. It is first to designate about 1 rac{1}{2} ext{ million acres of wilderness in Montana, and, by the way, this has been mentioned, but it is twice the size that the Forest Service recommended to be designated as wilderness in Montana. And the second thing this bill provides is the, quote, release of some 3 million acres of lands not suitable for wilderness but in wilderness study areas. Supposedly these lands are now released to be used for timber production. Not so. This bill is a sham, and, if anybody says that we are releasing 3 million acres of land for timber production, they are not telling the truth. This bill will establish massive and more wilderness areas, and it certainly gives nothing back to the hard-working people of the State of Montana who depend upon natural resources. The release language in this bill is so weak that even the lands not suitable for wilderness will be set aside in a park-like status in perpetuity. Preservationist will continue to block timber sales and timber communities will continue to choke to death.
Robert Smith: “I rise in opposition to the Montana wilderness bill. Its purpose really is to do two things. It is first to designate…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing the Montana wilderness bill during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Robert Smith
Mr. President, it is a privilege this morning to speak about a component of the stimulus package which I think does garner wide bipartisan support. There are many good ideas. And I, as a Republican, stand in this Chamber to say I look…
in the 106th Congress, we were the sponsors of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, a landmark piece of legislation to enhance the protection of the Steens Mountain area in southern Oregon, while…
I have every day put into the Congressional Record the details of a hate crime. These are always violent, they are always sickening, but they also happen to an American citizen. They happen sometimes because the victim is black, gay…
I think there are a couple of steps that I would recommend. First, agencies must be forced to consider the indirect costs of the regulations on small businesses.





