Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this structured rule and to a number of provisions included in the underlying provision in its current form. I oppose this legislation because it substitutes the deliberate and long-studied recommendation of well-trained Forest Service professionals with a purely political congressional action by designating 27,000 additional acres, which are land in the Forest Service today, as wilderness, beyond the Forest Service recommendation of 16,000 acres in southwestern Virginia's Jefferson National Forest.

This means that despite having spent millions of congressionally appropriated tax dollars and investing tens of thousands in on-the- ground Federal employee hours on studying this issue, the Democrat leadership will simply override the Forest Service's well-reasoned decision to force this additional acreage into wilderness status. This also, despite the fact that many of the areas proposed in this legislation do not meet the standards of the 1964 Wilderness Act, including roads, utility corridors, mountain biking areas, and a Federal Aviation Administration tower. These should not be considered within wilderness area, and yet, today, that's exactly what is happening.

Today's bill makes private landowners to the area vulnerable to the Jefferson National Forest Plan ultimate goal of obtaining all private lands within these expanded wilderness boundaries, including 722 total acres of outstanding privately held mineral rights.

What is even worse is that thousands of acres in this proposed wilderness area are at high risk for wildfire and require mechanical thinning for proper fire risk mitigation. Many of these areas are next to the small communities that will be placed at even greater risk of catastrophic wild fires if this land is not managed properly.

So even as the threat posed by wildfires to American communities all across this country is fresh on our minds, as we watch with great concern and sympathy the unbelievable damage these wildfires are inflicting on Southern California, nonetheless, the Democrat leadership of this House has decided that the best course of action is to extremely limit and outright prohibit commonsense reduction activities across this Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.

Besides the private land owners and homeowners adjacent to this land, other losers created by this legislation include a number of animal species covered by the Endangered Species Act, including bats and bears. Currently, several of the proposed wilderness areas added by this legislation are professionally managed to maintain threatened endangered and sensitive species habitat. By passing the legislation under this rule, Congress will be preventing the Forest Service from using the equipment that they need to comply with the Endangered Species Act.

This makes no sense, Mr. Speaker. It makes absolutely no sense why this new Democrat majority throws aside not only the expressed opportunities that the Forest Service have given us to understand proper management, but they will override professionals who have studied this and do this for a living.

Perhaps worst of all, Mr. Speaker, because this draconian ``wilderness'' designation prevents any road or trails from being improved in these areas, a number of our Nation's most vulnerable populations such as the elderly and disabled will be effectively prevented from accessing and enjoying this piece of America under this bill. It absolutely makes no sense, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sorry we're having to be on the floor today to take this position, because the Republican Party is in favor of our national parks, is in favor of people utilizing our national parks, and we view these areas as very historic areas that we want to preserve and make right and keep them.

Mr. Speaker, this is bad public policy. I oppose this structured rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California's words about the tragedies that are occurring. Not only for the past few days, but also, as always, anytime there's a wildfire, people who get in the way, the brave men and women of the National Park Service and others who go to help fight those fires, I know the Nation is at this time very focused on the lives and the property and the effort that is going on in California.

With great respect, I too, join the gentlewoman from California for expressing our sincere appreciation for the firefighters who are trying to battle and save the property and the lives in California.

Mr. Speaker, for perhaps the same reason that the gentlewoman from California has come down to join in this discussion today, perhaps with an opposite result, I, too, am down on the floor to talk about how wise management of our natural resources, of our Parks Service, is important. You don't have to go back really as far as Teddy Roosevelt to understand what Teddy Roosevelt saw, that this great Nation had the abundance of beautiful woodlands, hills, mountains, streams, the acreage included within that, the beautiful animals, the birds, the fish, the wolves that were a part of our landscape. And that's why national parks were created. National parks were created with an opportunity for the Federal Government to have a chance to allow people to come and see this great country, to see the beautiful country that we had.

As a young man growing up and scouting, I remember well the opportunity that I had to not only visit national parks, but a chance to get what is called the Forestry Merit Badge. And even back in 1965 or 1966, when I was receiving this badge, I remember, this is not the term that was used, best practices, but one has become used as a term of best practice and that is, wise management of our forests to not only sustain them, but to protect them, and to protect the animals and all that lives and counts on that forest surviving. We've learned these wise management techniques, not just in scouting to get the Forestry Merit Badge, but we have learned them through the years. We've learned that sometimes unwise management and doing things to our park system, in fact, caused more damage than it did good.

I remember back with the fires that we had in Yellowstone, how the National Park Service said just let it burn, it is a fire created by an act of God. But they really, as a result of that, learned that they had to learn a better practice to save millions of acres and millions of animals that could be destroyed.

Well, part of that best practice is what the National Park Service is attempting to do right now and has been attempting to do in this national park today. It is against their recommendation that politically we override the best practices, the best thoughts and ideas that people have who manage our park system, who do see the balance, who are there every day with the careful consideration.

By designating this area, an extensive amount of area, as wilderness, it means that arbitrarily, we're taking something that would never qualify under the intended statutes and add it in. I think this is unwise. This is how you do have problems. This is how you do have fires that burn out of control when you're not able to come in and protect the forest properly as a result of this designation. This is how you have problems when you're not able to take care of the endangered species that are in there and properly protect them, because it will have that wilderness designation.

And so with great respect for the same purpose that the gentlewoman from California came to notify us and to remember what America's paying attention to today, the wildfires in California, I would say we need that same sort of vision to avoid what could be in the time of drought or in the time of misdeed because of perhaps a lightning storm, something that's an unintended consequence, and that is to take this area and to move it into wilderness means that it will not receive or be able to receive the same kind of regular work that happens to protect these wilderness areas and national parks from destruction of a fire. I think it's a bad idea.

I think it's also a bad idea any time politicians in Washington, D.C. for political purposes decide to overrule common sense.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as the entire country is focused upon California fires, the disasters that are occurring and the heroic efforts of the firefighters, the people who live in California are working together, community activities, the entire country has been called into action. And I'm sure every single one of us, as not only Members of Congress but just as proud Americans, want to respond in a way that is appropriate.

The gentleman who represents a vast area that is included within those wildfires is with us now. He's the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). I would like to yield him 10 minutes at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation with Republican Leader Boehner, immediately appoint conferees to H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill for 2008.

Yesterday a number of news publications, including Roll Call, reported that the Democrat leadership intends to hold off sending appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to serve as ``an extension of their successful public relations campaign on the State Children's Health Insurance Program.''

While the Democrat leadership plays politics on this issue, however, our Nation's veterans are paying the price. For every day that the Democrats allow the veterans funding bill to languish without conferees for their own political agenda, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million, which could be used for veterans health care, veterans housing, and other important support activities for veterans and their families.

I would like to repeat that. Every single day there is $18.5 million that is lost for our veterans and their families.

On October 18, the American Legion National Commander Marty J. Conaster, five national vice commanders, and all 55 Legion National Executive Committee members sent Speaker Pelosi a letter pleading with her to put partisanship aside and provide this funding now for our veterans and troops.

At this time, I will insert this letter into the Congressional Record.

The American Legion,

Indianapolis, IN, October 18, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: Today ends the Fall meeting of The

American Legion's National Executive Committee, at The

American Legion's National Headquarters in Indianapolis,

Indiana. The National Executive Committee consists of an

elected leader from each of The American Legion's 55

Departments (50 States, the District of Columbia and four

foreign countries). In accordance with The American Legion's

National Constitution and By-laws, the National Executive

Committee serves as The American Legion's governing body.

The National Commander Marty Conatser briefed The National

Executive Committee on an array of issues to include the

status of the VA budget for FY 2008. The fiscal activities of

the 110th Congress--the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution, the

Budget Resolution for FY 2008, and the passage of the

Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs and Related Agencies

Appropriations for FY 2008 were reviewed.

However, in trying to grasp why such a bipartisan bill,

which passed overwhelmingly in both chambers, still hasn't

moved in over a month is rather difficult, especially since

the President has already said he would not veto the bill,

even though it exceeds his recommendations. Understanding why

the appropriations process has come to a complete halt is

difficult. What is preventing the appointment of conferees,

the Conference Committee, or passage of a Conference Report?

We are now in the new fiscal year with no idea when the Mil

Con-VA appropriations will be passed. If history repeats

itself, this standoff may last well into the second quarter

of the fiscal year. This uncertainty is disturbing to not

only The American Legion and other veterans' and military

service organizations, but to every veteran who is dependent

on VA for timely access to quality health care, earned

benefits, and other services provided by a grateful nation.

Madam Speaker, the newest generation of wartime veterans

are reporting to VA medical facilities every day as troops

are returning from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some

will be determined to be service-connected disabled because

of medical conditions incurred or aggravated while on active-

duty. Others may very well have invisible scars that need

attention as soon as possible. As VA welcomes new patients,

the existing patient population cannot be ignored nor should

their health care be rationed due to limited available

resources. There are veterans dependent on VA as their

life-support system.

The American Legion represents 2.6 million wartime

veterans, but also speaks for the 24 million veterans of the

United States Armed Forces and their families.

Please continue the appropriations process--name conferees,

convene the Conference Committee, and pass the Conference

Report.

Sincerely,

Marty Conatser, National Commander; Thomas L. Burns, Jr.

(DE), National Vice Commander; Randall A. Fisher (KY),

National Vice Commander; David A. Korth (WI), National

Vice Commander; James L. Van Horn (AK), National

Executive Committeeman; Ross Rogers (AK), National

Executive Committeeman; Peggy G. Dettori (AK), National

Vice Commander; Donald Hayden (MN), National Vice

Commander; Floyd W. Turner (AL), National Executive

Committeeman; Julius Maklary (AZ), National Executive

Committeeman; James W. Hackney (CA), National Executive

Committeeman.

Jeff Luginbuel (CO), National Executive Committeeman;

John J. Jackson (DE), National Executive Committeeman;

Robert J. Proctor (FL), National Executive

Committeeman; Ray Hendrix (GA), National Executive

Committeeman; Cleve Rice (ID), National Executive

Committeeman; W. Darrell Hansel (IN), National

Executive Committeeman; David O. Warnken (KS), National

Executive Committeeman; Charles D. Aucoin (LA),

National Executive Committeeman; Dr. Gordon B. Browning

(MD), National Executive Committeeman; Richard W.

Anderson (CT), National Executive Committeeman; Paul H.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 763 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, my friend, Mr. Sessions.

All time yielded during the consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 763.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

House Resolution 763 provides for consideration of H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule makes in order the substitute reported by the Committee on Natural Resources and makes in order the amendment from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the only amendment which was submitted to the Committee on Rules for consideration on this rule.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The bill before us today, H.R. 1011, designates 43,000 acres as wilderness and nearly 12,000 acres as national scenic areas in the Jefferson National Forest in southwestern Virginia. The areas in the Jefferson National Forest that are protected by this bill are some of the most beautiful areas of the country. The areas offer numerous recreational activities, including fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, canoeing, horseback riding and skiing. These areas are virtually priceless and provide much-needed opportunities for visitors and families to spend time in the great outdoors and enjoying America's natural beauty.

H.R. 1011 ensures that critical habitat for bears, song birds, wild turkeys, brook trout, and other species, in addition to preserving countless stands of old growth, a 45-foot cascading waterfall, and breathtaking scenic views that encompass wide areas. Preserving this habitat is also critical for the economy, as tourism is the fattest growing industry in the region.

Each of these areas contained in H.R. 1011 were either recommended as part of the Jefferson National Forest plan or have been endorsed by the relevant county boards of supervisors in the local areas. The bill has broad bipartisan support from five other Representatives from Virginia, both Virginia Senators, Governor Tim Kaine and four county boards of supervisors. Local businesses and State organizations, faith groups, the International Mountain Bicycling Association and local bear hunters also support this bill.

Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and Mr. Boucher for their dedication and hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor today so that we can ensure that America's most treasured resources are protected once again for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, an esteemed environmentalist and champion for our national resources, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I share the comments of our prior speakers. Both the Speaker of the House and the gentleman from California spoke eloquently about the disasters that are happening in our home State. It is certainly a time of great need and a great need for us to come together to figure out how we proceed from here to battle this rage.

I see Mr. Lewis in the audience, and I have been to his district at a hearing about this very topic, and I know the serious nature of some of the forest management issues that are around his district and we have discussed it on numerous occasions. And our sympathies are with you and those of your constituents, Mr. Lewis.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just wish to again give my deepest condolences to the folks who have lost their property in your district, Mr. Lewis. As you have said, we have traveled there and had hearings, and, frankly, with all the dry timber that was left behind there, we were fearful that that would have happened a couple of years ago, and I understand it's happening as we speak. And hopefully we will not lose any more lives. And our hopes and prayers are with the people that habitat that region in and around Lake Arrowhead.

With regard to the bill at hand, H.R. 1011, I would just like to say, as has been said before, that this measure is supported by the members of the Virginia delegation. We will be offering, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the only amendment that was proposed under this rule. It's supported by all the local boards of supervisors as well as Senator Warner, Governor Kaine.

And, in fact, we have listened to the community. And Mr. Sessions is right. The local officials and local community leaders, citizens of a region should be consulted when we designate one of these wilderness areas. And, in fact, this bill does incorporate those suggestions and comments of the local community. They desire this wilderness designation for their area. And it is truly going to be a national treasure. It already is, and it will be preserved for our children and for their children.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I couldn't disagree more with the gentleman's last comments. What I heard just does not even make any sense to me, having spent the last 5 years of my life sitting here watching this House debate veterans issues.

The first 4 years that I was here, we saw the Republican Congress that was in power at that time refuse to take up a number of measures that were brought forward by the Democratic minority at that time. In fact, there were several discharge petitions that laid languishing at that desk for weeks and weeks on end until they finally died at the end of the session because they never got the attention of the Republican majority at that time. In fact, this year, since we have taken back the House and we have become a Democratic majority, we have been champions of veterans issues. And to say that they want to now lay letters upon the table that they're demanding of the Speaker's attention, we have been putting attention on this issue for a number of years. And not only are we taking care of our veterans now for the

first time in 12 years, but we are taking care of it in a way that would surprise them. And our Nation's veterans are very grateful that we are finally giving them the respect they deserve.

And I will tell you that this House, by a vote of 409-2, passed the Veterans appropriations bill. And, yes, we do need to go to conference; but we will do that when the conferees are appointed in the Senate, when it is appropriate to do it. We have passed, this year, an additional appropriation of $3.4 billion to take care of our Nation's veterans. We will, in fact, make sure that all the veterans are taken care of. In fact, on November 11 of this year we will celebrate tremendous respect for our Nation's veterans and will, in fact, do everything that we have promised to do, and more.

We just saw today three bills taken up by the Veterans' Committee to, in fact, take care of the needs of our Nation's veterans. And I am highly offended by the insinuation that we are in some way acting in a partisan way not to take care of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to H.R. 1011, this bill is, in fact, an important bill to protect the natural resources of the State of Virginia, a vital area for our country. Mr. Boucher and the delegation from Virginia have done a fabulous job in crafting this proposal. It is a bill that preserves tens of thousands of acres of pristine wilderness in Jefferson National Forest. It is necessary that these beautiful, natural landscapes remain protected and untouched so that they may be enjoyed by our children and our grandchildren for years to come. It deserves the strong support of all the Members on the floor today.

That is the bill that we will be moving the previous question on. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) who, with such distinction, chairs the Committee on Natural Resources, for his leadership and his very able assistance in bringing this measure to the House floor today.

Earlier this year, I introduced the legislation, along with other members of Virginia's House delegation. In fact, original cosponsors of this legislation comprise a majority of Virginia's House delegation, and it is a bipartisan majority of that delegation. And I want to express my appreciation to our colleagues from Virginia, Representatives Wolf, Davis, Scott and Moran for coauthoring the bill, along with me, and for their strong support of this effort. I would also note, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation was coauthored by our recently departed colleague, Mrs. Davis as well.

Again, on a bipartisan basis, Virginia's United States Senators have introduced a measure identical to the bill that is under consideration today.

The Virginia Ridge and Valley Act offers needed protection to 53,000 acres of national forest land in the congressional district that I have the privilege of representing. It extends protection to approximately 550 acres of the Jefferson National Forest situated in our neighboring State of West Virginia, in the congressional district represented by Chairman Rahall.

Of the total acreage protected, 43,000 acres will receive the wilderness designation, and 10,000 acres will become new national scenic areas. These designations confer both economic and environmental benefits that are of great importance to our region.

Virginia's national forest provides an excellent outdoor experience with our State's highest mountains, fast-flowing rivers and superb hunting, camping, fishing, backpacking, winter sports and other activities.

Our existing wilderness areas are treasured by a growing number of travelers who collectively are boosting Virginia's tourism economy. In fact, tourism is among the fastest growing of all the industries in my congressional district; and our existing wilderness areas, which are a haven for outdoor activities and recreation of various kinds, are a significant contributor to that current growth in the economy within my region.

The protections we're extending today for lands containing rare treasures of Virginia's natural heritage and the permanent protection that will then be afforded will further enhance our region's travel economy. These designations also protect old-growth timber, wildlife habitat, and our region's clean water resources.

Virginia has a long and proud history of resource conservation and protection of our diverse ecosystems. We have continual awareness of the unique role that our natural landscape plays in our culture and in our State's history. That awareness is reflected in the bipartisan support for this measure in both our House and Senate delegations. It is reflected in the endorsement of this bill by local governments in my congressional district, and it is reflected in the endorsements for the bill of numerous civic organizations and literally of scores of local businesses.

With thanks to the six Virginia cosponsors, and all who have assisted us, and particular thanks to Chairman Rahall of the Natural Resources Committee, and his outstanding staff, I urge passage of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act.

Over the last several weeks, I have been engaged in discussions with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from our neighboring Sixth Congressional district in Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) regarding the possibility of adjusting the boundaries of some of the areas receiving protection in this legislation.

Mr. Goodlatte will be offering an amendment shortly that reflects our conversations and our agreement to adjust some of those boundaries. I'll be urging the adoption of Mr. Goodlatte's amendment when that amendment is offered later this afternoon.

I, again, thank the gentleman from West Virginia for yielding this time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I would say to the Speaker that I rise for purposes of claiming the time in opposition, although I will not actually oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for the good work that we have been able to do together on the amendment that he offers this afternoon. I want to thank him for the time that he and I have expended in conversations about the subject matter the amendment addresses, and for the considerable amount of time that his very capable staff and mine have also expended on this matter. The staffs have focused on it a bit more than we have.

Collectively, I think we've done a very good job in addressing a range of the concerns that the gentleman from Virginia last expressed. These adjustments are being made in a manner which I think improves the bill, and it is my intention to urge that the amendment be adopted.

Under the amendment, 26 acres will be removed from the Brush Mountain East Wilderness Area in order to ensure that an existing power line is not within the wilderness boundary.

Another adjustment is of 1,263 acres, and that is in the Seng Mountain Scenic Area, which will carve out a motorcycle trail and an area appropriate for bear habitat management.

Another portion of the amendment provides greater flexibility for the Forest Service regarding trail construction adjacent to the Raccoon Branch designated area.

And as I indicated, these changes improve the legislation, and I urge adoption of the amendment which makes them.

As for the underlying bill, I would point out that this is truly a bipartisan measure. It is cosponsored in this body by a majority of Virginia's House delegation, including three original Republican sponsors, three original Democratic sponsors.

In the other body, both of Virginia's United States Senators, on a bipartisan basis, have introduced the identical measure. And so the construction of this legislation arises from a deep bipartisan conversation that has proceeded over a number of years.

It also strongly reflects the desires of the people in the district that I have the privilege of representing. It is true that some of the areas added for protection in this measure go beyond what the forest plan devised by the Jefferson National Forest management had recommended.

But nowhere is it written that Congress making ultimate public policy is in some way disabled from adding areas for protection that go beyond what the agency suggests it would like to see.

We have incorporated the recommendations made in the forest plan, and we have added selected additional acreages that have been endorsed by the local governments, by the elected boards of supervisors that reflect the will of the people and the counties where these added areas are situated.

I would also note that large numbers of civic organizations and scores of locally owned businesses have endorsed the passage of this measure. And it clearly, given that broad base of support, bipartisan here, and among elected representatives, local businesses, civic organizations, and others in the district that I represent, clearly represents the will of what the people in that part of Virginia would like to have.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that our colleagues will join us in approving this legislation and in adopting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I come from a State which has more of its land locked up in wilderness than any other State, 58 million acres. This is larger than the entire State of New York and accounts for 56 percent of all the wilderness in the United States, so I think I know wilderness. I know that a lot of wilderness in Alaska is designated for reasons that have little to do with the stated goals of the Wilderness Act.

The designations have blocked vital uses of these lands and blocked access to State and private resources that we Alaskans were promised when we entered statehood. There have been and still are major consequences for what Congress did in 1980. In the East, where most of you come from, that is not always the case.

All I can say is that if this is what Mr. Boucher and his constituents want in Virginia, then good luck. I can guess that one day, I think that one day they will regret this action. Given Virginia's population growth, the severe risk of forest fires, such as they are in California today, caused by sustained drought, I believe all but two counties have been declared disaster areas by the Governor last week, problems with gypsy moths and other agricultural threats to this area and the dampening effect that wilderness restrictions can have on the development of adjacent areas, you may wonder why you have brought this upon yourself. We should be looking to give the Forest Service more tools to manage our lands, not taking them away, which is exactly what wilderness does.

Once this bill becomes law, our constituents, your constituents, may find that they may not be able to burn wood in their fireplaces that keep them warm in the winter because their quality of wilderness must be protected, or that a new school or hospital can't be built because the view shed for the wilderness could be affected. People are even talking about ``smellscapes'' when it comes to wilderness areas, so enjoy your Weber grill right now while you can.

The committee should also know that H.R. 1011 designates nearly 27,000 acres of wilderness above what was recommended by the Forest Service. This is contrary to the recently revised Jefferson National Forest Plan, which took 11 years, millions of dollars, and extensive public involvement to create. We asked for this study. They followed the rules, but now we are ignoring the professional land managers.

In addition, H.R. 1011 will endanger citizens living near this proposed wilderness area by tying the hands of the Forest Service, who need to perform proactive treatments that could reduce the risk of wildfires. Wildfires, I keep stressing that because we are seeing what is happening in California. If they cleared off those forests around those homes, they would not be burning today, but that was prohibited.

Nonqualifying areas are now being actively managed for endangered threatened species protection, and this could come to an end.

The amendment filed by Mr. Goodlatte helps mitigate some of these issues, and I will strongly support the amendment. Most notably, the amendment will remove 26 acres which contain a power line and remove 1,263 acres from the proposed designation to allow continued use of the Barton Gap Motorized trail and Wildlife Habitat Management in key areas.

I could go on and on about this. I just want to warn people, it is not the area we are talking about; it is the Wilderness Act itself, and it should be upgraded. I encourage my chairman to do so so that we can address those problems that can occur from the designation of wilderness, taking care of gypsy moths, taking care of the fires, taking care of the ability to access and to have the availability of the area for public use. If we do not do that, then I think we are doing ourselves a great mistake.

I do not live in this area. I am not affected by it. That's why, very frankly, I am not raising some of the objections that I should have raised to it.

I think you will learn, though, in the long run, you are not doing yourselves a favor. The Forest Service themselves can manage this land in a manner that will take and provide for the people. It

does not have to be designated as a wilderness area.

Again, it has already been done. We have moved it out of committee, and I will say, again, may I not be on this floor when you come back to say we have to revise it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman that just spoke and his presentation. I just, again, wish that people would understand it's not the wilderness itself; it's how the act has been written. And if you think you're going to make a living off of coffee shops and tourism, these are low-grade paying jobs. I've seen it happen. I've seen my town of Ketchikan. We created a forest that we can't harvest and we took $80,000 jobs now down to the minimum wage. That will happen too. So I just, and it's too late, it's your district. You believe in what you say, and I commend you for it. But this is not the economy which I see, serving those that come from the larger urban areas, the elitists, as I call it.

And this area, by the way, was farmed at one time, as you know, and timbered and mined. People had jobs that provided and produced. We are rapidly becoming a Nation of consumption and of no production, of pleasure and no sweat.

Having said that, I have no other speakers, and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And I do thank both the gentlemen from Virginia. This is a good amendment. I urge the passage of this amendment. It does help the bill somewhat, and I think my colleagues would be wise to vote for it.

I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman for that information. There are really a couple of bills I wanted to ask about that I wonder when and if they are going to be coming back. As the gentleman knows, we only have a few more weeks of legislation outside of what we might have to do on the appropriations bills.

Yesterday, I spoke on the floor, and others did, in opposition to the FISA bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill, that was on the floor yesterday. We quit in the middle of that debate. I am wondering if the gentleman has any information on when that bill may come back to the floor or if you have any information that it wouldn't be coming back.

I would yield.

I thank the gentleman for that. I would say that we would be interested in trying to continue to work to get a bill on the floor on this important issue that a broad base of Members of the House on both sides could support. And as we were able to talk about earlier today, I would hope that we would have a chance maybe to look at that bill one more time.

The other bill that got a lot of attention this week was the bill that was reported out of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Armenian genocide, and I wonder if my friend has any sense of the status of that bill.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that information. We are very interested in that bill.

On the bill that we just voted on, a vote that would have been pretty easy to predict, I believe, 2 weeks ago, I noticed just this week that the Governor of New York said that he would be willing to accept new language in that bill that would eliminate his State's ability to cover families at over 400 percent of the poverty level. I would suggest that that is one of the compromises that would really be helpful, if we could eliminate that level that appears to only initially apply to the State of New York. Last week, when Mr. Hoyer and I discussed this, he suggested that if the veto was sustained, that his view was that we should have an opportunity to work together on a bill that could come to the House floor. And I am wondering if the gentleman has any information on how the majority intends to move forward now on that bill.

I yield to the gentleman.

I would particularly think that that would be the topic I just raised, where families of four could make up to $83,000 a year and still have their children insured by taxpayers, would be one of the areas that, if we could deal with that issue, that would be a significant step on the bill, maybe not the only step necessary. But if we could now get in a situation where we could do what the vast majority of the House said they wanted to do just a few weeks ago when we definitely went on record saying we don't want this State Child Insurance Program to go out of existence but we want to do what we can to be sure that it is meeting the real goals of the program.

That would be helpful. And any efforts that we can collectively make to where we work together on this would be, I think, helpful in reaching a conclusion. And I think this too: unfortunately, I don't think many minds were changed in the last 2 weeks, and we lost 2 weeks that we could have been talking. But that's behind us now, and I'm hoping we move forward.

The other major topic that I wanted to ask a question about today to my friend was on appropriations. I've been asking every week since we started the new fiscal year, or approached the new fiscal year, when we were going to have some bills on the floor or to go to conference, rather, on bills. On the Military Quality of Life bill, the Senate Democrats have been named to the conference. The Senate Republicans have been named to the conference. The House Republicans have been named to the conference. And I'm wondering if the gentleman has any sense of when we might actually see something now begin to happen on these appropriations bills.

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, I appreciate the gentleman's view on that. I am hopeful. I think we've got a handful of bills that have been approved now by both the House and the Senate, bills reported over to the House from the Senate; and my view is that we're beyond the time when we should have been reaching some conclusions on these bills, and urge the majority to work with the minority and find a way to get these bills done.

I think in the Mil Qual Veterans area there was a substantial increase. There's been an increase every year for the last dozen years. But a substantial increase to the tune of like $18.5 million a day in benefits to veterans and military families; and every day we let that go by just complicates the delivery of those services. And I hope we can move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.