Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for Taiwan's efforts to participate in the World Health Organization. Taiwan's participation in the WHO is a health issue rather than a political issue. Taiwan has been directly impacted by many of the new, global health threats that have swept Asia since 2002. During the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, Taiwan saw one of the highest incident rates of infection. More recently, Taiwan has reported incidences of avian flu outbreak, a disease which presents a global threat.

For many years, in my district, Idaho State University hosted a unique program providing a language and cultural education program for junior diplomatic officers in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I spent time discussing the American political system and current events in Taiwan with the junior diplomats, and they taught me a great deal about Taiwan's political system and the challenges it faces. As Taiwan deals with new arising health threats, the lessons that I learned from the young diplomats reminded me of the importance of ensuring that all people throughout the world can access resources to fight potential pandemics.

Madam Speaker, global health pandemics recognize no borders. Taiwan has been seeking observer status at the WHO since 1997. Other non- sovereign entities, such as the Holy See, maintain observer status. Protecting people's health is not a political issue, and gaining access to global health organizations should not be a political issue either. Safeguarding world health requires the participation of everyone in the international community. Madam Speaker, I urge the international community to accept Taiwan into the WHO community this year.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Paige E. McManus, former staff director for the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, who recently concluded 13 years of honorable service in this body.

During my tenure as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Benefits in the 107th Congress, my colleagues and I were direct beneficiaries of Ms. McManus's counsel on legislative, policy, budgetary, and oversight matters.

Ms. McManus's considerable expertise served the subcommittee in many thematic areas. She oversaw the $24 billion per year Department of Veterans Affairs disability compensation and pension entitlement program, including herbicide-related disabilities, cold weather-related disabilities, Persian Gulf undiagnosed illnesses, disabilities common to ex-POWs, adapted housing and automobile benefits for seriously disabled veterans, Medal of Honor special pension benefits, and Merchant Mariner benefits; the surviving spouse programs, including dependency and indemnity compensation, Survivor Benefit Plan, and CHAMPVA; burial benefits and services under VA's National Cemetery Administration and the State Cemetery Grants Program, as well as policy matters associated with Arlington National Cemetery and the American Battle Monuments Commission; and national insurance programs, such as Veterans' Group life Insurance and Servicemembers' Group life Insurance.

Ms. McManus's longstanding work at the direction of Veterans' Affairs Committee leadership on the creation of the World War II Memorial and VA's National Shrines initiative, enactment of special combat pay, or concurrent receipt, and dependency and indemnity compensation for remarried spouses proved especially meritorious. The legislative road traveled by each of these measures was long and exceptionally arduous. Ms. McManus's advice and perseverance added great value. The depth and breadth of her policy expertise and advice indeed proved hard to match.

Madam Speaker, Paige McManus has exemplified the highest ideals of public service serving the Committee with honor, integrity, and energy. Thank you, Paige, for your many years of dedicated service to the United States Congress and to our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern with certain provisions of the Republican Budget Substitute Amendment offered by Representative Ryan. I strongly support the tax provisions included in the Ryan Amendment. Republican tax relief has led to unprecedented economic growth and dropped the unemployment rate. More importantly, tax relief gives back to Americans their own money. The robust economic growth in this Nation over the past few years is proof that individual Americans use and invest their dollars much more wisely than the Federal Government does. I am pleased that the Ryan Amendment makes the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 permanent and recognizes the reality of our Nation's fiscal situation by addressing the out-of- control growth of entitlement spending.

However, I want to make clear my views regarding certain budget process reforms included in the Ryan amendment. I am strongly opposed to giving any U.S. President the power to use a line item veto. Our Founding Fathers wisely attempted to curtail the power of each branch of the Federal Government by instituting a system of checks and balances. Granting the President additional power to veto specific portions of a bill instead of the bill as a whole cedes too much authority to the executive branch and could lead to unfair and unilateral power. I am very disappointed that the Ryan Amendment includes a provision granting the President this unconstitutional power.

While I strongly oppose the line-item veto provision and other attempts to reduce Congress's constitutional power of the purse included in the Ryan Amendment, it is clear to me that this proposal is preferable to an alternative that raises taxes by an average of $2,597 for each of my constituents.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 177, passage of H.R. 1130--Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act, I was unavoidably detained and unable to vote.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 176, passage of H.R. 1284--Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2007, I was unavoidably detained and unable to vote.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 178, passage of H.R. 740-- Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007, I was unavoidably detained and unable to vote.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an exceptional high school choir in my district, the Madison High School Bel Canto Choir of Rexburg, Idaho, which has been chosen to perform at New York City's legendary Carnegie Hall on March 19, 2007.

The Bel Canto choir was selected out of dozens of high school choirs across the country for this performance. The concert will feature 200 students from three states, and it is the capstone of Carnegie Hall's yearlong National High School Choral Festival. The concert will be conducted by Dr. Craig Jessop, esteemed Music Director of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, who has been working with the choirs and their conductors throughout the year. Apart from their world-renowned performances, Carnegie Hall brings innovative music education programs to students across the nation. I am delighted that these young constituents have been given this opportunity.

Led by David Hinck, the Madison High School Bel Canto Choir had its beginnings in the 1960s. The choir consistently receives high ratings at regional choral festivals and has been a featured ensemble at the Idaho Music Educators Conference, Northwest Music Educators Conference, and the Idaho ACDA Retreat. In 2005, the choir received top honors at the FAME festival in Branson, Missouri. The ensemble regularly joins with the MHS Orchestra and has performed several works with the orchestra and other choirs from the Eastern Idaho Area.

I am honored to have one of the four schools in the nation chosen for the Carnegie Hall National High School Choral Festival residing in my Idaho district. They should be proud not only of their musical achievement, but their embodiment of the quality musical education the State of Idaho provides. I commend these students and their leaders for their success, and wish them the best of luck on March 19 when they perform at Carnegie Hall.

Madam Speaker, I rise today not because I want to take part in this debate, but because I am ashamed that this Congress is engaging in it at all.

I've heard a lot of posturing so far this week. I've heard a lot of hyperbole and a lot of revisionist history. I've also heard some things that just don't mesh with reality. I don't think that everything my colleagues say is completely honest. So for a moment, let's be honest-- because that is the least we owe to our constituents and to the men and women who are fighting this war.

I am willing to admit that if Congress knew in 2002 what it knows today it might not have voted to authorize the war. Knowing that Saddam Hussein apparently did not have weapons of mass destruction, Congress might have preferred to contain him, perhaps bomb him, strengthen international sanctions, and work with our allies in the region to undermine his regime.

But we can't go back to 2002 and redo that vote. We have to deal with the situation that is currently before us. And what is before us right now is a Congressional resolution that undermines our troops while they are in the middle of fighting a war that Congress sent them to fight. I do not understand why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't see that.

For just a moment, I want to ask my colleagues to put themselves in the positions of the thousands of soldiers on the ground in Iraq. What would you think if you learned that the very people who sent you to fight this war are now saying that they don't support what you are doing? On the ground in Iraq, there are two things that keep you going: the thought of returning home to your family and the knowledge that you are doing something to protect your nation from terrorism. But if Congressional Democrats have their way today, they will take away from our soldiers the support of their Congress and of their country. What a terrible message to send to these brave soldiers.

For just a moment, put yourself in the shoes of the terrorists. What would you think when you heard the U.S. Congress is voting against the war? You would think you were winning. You would be encouraged by the news. You would think that everything Osama Bin Laden had said about Americans had been true all along. You would think that Americans cannot stand bloodshed and will cower from the fight. You would think that they don't have the stomach for a long-term battle and if the terrorists just hold on, the United States will eventually leave with its tails between its legs. What a terrible message to send at the exact moment that we are preparing to send more troops into battle.

At some point, my colleagues across the aisle have to let go of the fact that their newfound opposition to the War in Iraq is popular in their districts and act in the best interests for the future of our Nation. This resolution isn't a diversion, a side-show, or even a shot across the bow. It is a dangerous message to send.

I don't say any of this lightly and I don't say it for political reasons. I say it because I mean it. In 2006, I was the only Republican to vote against the rule when my party tried to embarrass Mr. Murtha. Then, I thought that my party was playing games with the war and I refused to support that effort. Today, I think that the other party is playing games with the war and I refuse to have any part of this.

I would rather we consider a motion to pull all of our troops out of Iraq immediately than vote on this Democrat resolution that undermines our troops while at the same time puts them in harm's way. This resolution is the worst of all worlds.

My final thought today is that it is clear to many of us that this resolution is simply a Democratic attempt to embarrass President Bush. My friends across the aisle know they can not impeach him. They know they can not change the fact that many of them voted for the War in Iraq. And most of them recognize the dangers of voting to defund the war. So instead, they are trying to embarrass the President.

I say fine, embarrass the President. Send him a message that you are now in charge. Remind him that voters demanded change last November. Do whatever you need to do, but don't undermine our troops in the process. Leave them out of your plans for payback because they did nothing to attract your anger or frustration.

Madam Speaker, what we are doing today is wrong. We're better than this. We're smarter than this. We're above using the war, and our troops, for political gain. What the Democrats are doing with this resolution is not just intellectually dishonest, it is morally bankrupt.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to rise and show my appreciation for Karen Haas, the outgoing Clerk of the House. Karen is truly deserving of recognition for a job very well done.

It is a pleasure to know Karen, as she is one of the most thoughtful and considerate people on Capitol Hill. She has done an exceptional job running the Clerk's office, and knowing that Karen was in charge meant other members and I knew that things were getting done right.

I can even say that I have had the privilege to ``work'' for Karen. When Karen ran the House floor operations, I would get calls at all times of the day asking if I could preside. I never hesitated to preside when Karen asked, nor did my colleagues.

Some people might have been surprised when Speaker Hastert tapped Karen to fill the Clerk's position. I wasn't surprised; I knew he made a very good choice.

Karen has done a magnificent job as Clerk and we will truly miss having her in the Capitol. Karen, thank you for a job well done.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Sergeant Jedediah Berman, an Idaho native, a constituent of mine, and a proud member of the United States Military for over 15 years.

In 2004, Sergeant Berman was serving in Iraq when he was seriously wounded by an lED explosion next to his Fox vehicle. The right side of his head was badly injured. His arm was mangled, his lung had collapsed, his knee was injured, and he had shrapnel in his shoulder. He was treated first at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, then transferred to Walter Reed Medical Center here in Washington, and finally sent to Madigan Medical Center in Fort Lewis to undergo intensive treatment and rehabilitation. While his doctors were able to rebuild much of his face, they could not replace his eye or repair his hearing in his right ear. Shrapnel remained lodged in his body and his brain, his knees continued to cause him intense pain, and he had only limited use of his arm.

Despite these enormous hardships and the significant pain of his injuries, Sergeant Berman badly wanted to return to Iraq to be with his unit, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, which had been redeployed to Iraq while Berman was recovering. Last November, he received good news from the review board that he was fit for duty and would be able to rejoin his fellow soldiers. He deployed a few days before Christmas and has rejoined the Stryker Brigade in Iraq where he continues to serve our great Nation.

Madam Speaker, Sergeant Berman is an inspiration and example to us all. He exemplifies the sort of brave and honorable military men and women that are protecting our Nation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the rest of the world. I am proud and honored to represent him and many others like him in Congress, and I am grateful for their service to our great Nation. I would also like to recognize Sergeant Berman's family, and the many other military families throughout America, for their sacrifices and thank his mother, in particular, who brought her son's service and commitment to my attention.

As we conduct our business in Congress, I know that my colleagues and I will continue to recognize and pay tribute to the honorable men and women who are serving our country and honor the many Sergeant Bermans who willingly make such great sacrifices to protect those of us at home. To our military men and women serving at home and abroad, the American people thank you for your great service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 42, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to congratulate the Boise State University Broncos football team on an exceptional football season and a great victory in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl.

I listened with interest to the last resolution congratulating Florida and the Florida Gators and their national championship game. They truly deserved it. The Florida Gators went into the game against Ohio State as significant underdogs in the minds of most of the media, and so did the Boise State Broncos against the Oklahoma Sooners enter that game as significant underdogs. Nobody really gave them a chance.

But when the Broncos defeated the University of Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl on New Year's Day, they completed the only, and I will repeat, the only undefeated season of any Division I-A collegiate football team in the 2006-2007 season. More than that, they showed the country what thousands of Boise State fans, known as the Bronco Nation, already know; the Boise State Broncos can play with the best.

Some have suggested that maybe Boise State doesn't have as tough a schedule as some other teams. I will tell you that on their schedule this year I think they played six teams that were in bowl games in post season. They had a pretty tough schedule, and they beat them all.

The 2007 Fiesta Bowl will go down in the books as one of the best and most exciting games in the history of college football. Both teams played with talents and heart, unwilling to let mistakes or shifts in momentum force their hands. And when, with only moments left in regulation, it looked like it was all over, the Broncos knew otherwise and turned to the back of their playbook.

Plays like the ``hook-and-lateral'' and the now famous ``Statue of Liberty'' required creativity, skill and guts. The talented Broncos executed them perfectly, winning the game in the heart-stopping last seconds of overtime. Head Coach Chris Peterson and his players should be commended for their courage, resolve and ability.

Last week Coach Peterson was awarded the Paul ``Bear'' Bryant Award and was named 2006 National Coach of the Year. He and his talented coaching staff will continue striving to make a winning program even better.

The BSU Bronco football program has taken gifted, big-hearted young men and created an impressive legacy in the making. The Broncos have won the last five consecutive Western Athletic Conference football championships and, with the Nation's top scoring Division I-A football team for the last seven seasons.

Their roster includes such talents as quarterback Jared Zabransky, the game's Offensive Most Valuable Player, who completed his college football career with a 33-5 record as starting quarterback; Marty Tadman, Defensive MVP of the game; and Ian Johnson, one of the Nation's most exciting running backs, who scored the game-winning two-point conversion in overtime, and after the game proposed to his fiancee, now a Boise State cheerleader. I don't know if I would have had that much courage, quite frankly, to propose to someone on national television. But it just shows the heart and courage of this team.

These stars are just a few examples of the determination, talent and heart that make up the whole Bronco football team. The entire team should be commended for both its success on the field and the character displayed by each individual.

The Boise State Broncos football team has made us proud; has made the State of Idaho, the City of Boise proud, and I am glad that we have this chance to recognize them today.

And in case anybody wonders if this is just about football, I will tell you, in talking to the President of the University, he said that after the Bronco season, the number of applications for the

postgraduate program has skyrocketed. So this is more than just about football. It is about national recognition for a team and a school, and the outstanding character of that school and the educational opportunities it provides to people from all over this country.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak on this and for bringing this to the floor today. This Saturday they have a parade and a day of recognition for the Boise State team, and I am sure that they will be very honored to have this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give a speech I have long dreaded but knew would one day come. It is a speech many of us in this body have had to deliver from time-to-time--one that none of us likes to give but one that is entirely necessary and right.

The speech I am talking about is one that announces the retirement of a trusted staffer and ally, someone who has worked with me since my election to Congress and served the people of Idaho's Second Congressional District with distinction, class, and a sincerity matched by none.

That staffer is a gentleman named Charley Barnes. Charley has worked in my Twin Falls office for the past 8 years handling all of my agriculture outreach efforts and working day-in and day-out with the farmers and ranchers of Idaho to make sure their Government is effectively serving them.

When I first got to Washington, I was immediately awarded a seat on the House Agriculture Committee. While this assignment was a great honor and of immense importance to the people of my district, it was not an assignment that played to my greatest expertise. So I knew from the start that I was going to need exceptional staff to guide me through my duties on the committee and the re-write of the farm bill. And thank god I had Charley Barnes by my side to help me out.

I am proud of the farm bill we produced in 2002 and believe it has been perhaps the best farm bill this Congress has ever written. While I can't claim that Charley wrote the farm bill, he provided advice and counsel to me that was critical to my work as a member of the committee.

But Charley's service to the Second District went well beyond the re- write of the farm bill or preparing me for a few committee hearings.

When the farmers of Idaho's Second Congressional District were devastated by drought and disease, Charley was there to lend a helping hand and push his own boss to support disaster assistance payments that kept farmers out of bankruptcy and the economy of small, rural towns alive.

When the Federal Government mistakenly sprayed a product called OUST on private land, killing the sugar beets, wheat, and potatoes of Idaho farmers, Charley was there to witness the damage, organize the Idaho congressional delegation, and push the BLM and USDA to compensate farmers for their loss. Idaho's farmers are still fighting this battle, but they have a great friend and advocate in Charley Barnes.

When the USDA tried to penalize Idaho's sugar farmers for their wrongful participation in a program for which they were told they qualified, Charley was there to argue against punishing these farmers. Charley made an impassioned defense of these producers, and in the end, Charley was proven right. USDA relented and Idaho's sugar farmers saw firsthand the value of a forceful advocate like Charley Barnes.

And when a farmer in my district is facing an appeal before the USDA over an issue where the farmer believes he had done nothing wrong, more often than not that farmer will see Charley Barnes attend that appeal, offer words of encouragement, and stand beside them for the duration of the hearing.

Charley Barnes doesn't see his work in my office as just another job. He sees his role in my office as an advocate for agriculture, an advocate for farmers and ranchers, an advocate for rural communities, and most importantly, an advocate for rural families.

Charley Barnes isn't just a congressional staffer, he's a farmer, a businessman, a husband, a father, and a very good friend.

Everyone who has ever met Charley Barnes is better off for having known him. The people of the Second District are better off for having been served by Charley Barnes. And I am a better Congressman today than I was 8 years ago because I had the good sense to hire, and learn from, Charley Barnes.

I know I speak for everyone in my office when I say that we are going to miss Charley's day-to-day presence in the office. But this is not goodbye, because we are going to be calling on Charley from time-to- time for some good advice, some constructive criticism, and a nudge in the right direction.

As he settles into retirement, and a well-deserved break from the daily grind of a long and distinguished career, I wish Charley well in all of his future endeavors and offer my sincere gratitude for all his hard work, great advice, and dedication to the people of Idaho.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. J. Kent Marlor of Rexburg, Idaho. On August 24, 2006, Dr. Marlor retired from a 43 year career as a professor of Political Science at Ricks College and later Brigham Young University--Idaho.

Throughout his career, Dr. Marlor has proven himself to be a significant member of the academic community. His contributions have included detailed and important research and publications regarding the government's role in wildlife and public land management. Just as important as his intellectual contributions, Dr. Marlor has greatly contributed to the future of his students. He has been an advisor, guide, and most importantly a friend to countless students pursuing their educations. Due to Dr. Marlor's tireless concern for his students' wellbeing, many of them have gone on to a variety of successful careers in government, law, and education. In fact, several of his former students have been employed here on Capitol Hill and in other branches and departments of the government.

Dr. Marlor has positively contributed to the youth of Idaho not only through his teaching career, but also through his dedicated service in the Boy Scouts of America. For twenty-five years Dr. Marlor, an Eagle Scout himself, has selflessly served as a scoutmaster and on several scouting committees. For his devoted service, he has been awarded the prestigious Silver Beaver Award by the Boy Scouts of America.

Dr. Marlor's contributions have extended to Idaho's great natural environment as well. He has been a lifelong outdoor enthusiast and for many years has selflessly donated his time and efforts to conservation and wildlife management in Idaho. Dr. Marlor has served as a chairman on the Idaho Wildlife Council, the Idaho Fish and Game Advisory Committee, and he is currently the president of the Idaho Wildlife Federation. Due to his leadership in this field, Idahoans for generations to come can be ensured a continuation of Idaho's rugged outdoor legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have such a distinguished and dedicated constituent residing within Idaho's 2nd Congressional District. It is dedicated educators and volunteers like Dr. Marlor that ensure the continued success of our great nation. His contributions have been immeasurable. Men like Dr. Marlor rarely rest, and I am certain he will continue to positively contribute to Idaho and the Nation in his retirement.

Madam Speaker, in regard to the opening statement, I notice that this bill really is not being rushed to the floor. It has been in development for 6 years. I wouldn't call that rushing anything to the floor. In fact, it has been in the form of a bill for over 3 years, so people have had a chance to look at it and know what we have been talking about here.

Idahoans know that the Boulder-White Clouds are some of the most beautiful mountains in Idaho. They also know they have been the subject of some of the most contentious wilderness debates in our time.

H.R. 3603, the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act, marks a new area in wilderness creation, one in which the needs of the people who live and recreate in the area are as important as the lines drawn on a map. The old approach to wilderness of sacrificing the needs of individuals and specific user groups to the benefit of others will not work anymore. Those who are affected by wilderness must be a part of the solution.

During the past 6 years, my staff and I had countless meetings with the groups and individuals that will be impacted by my proposed wilderness designation. These meetings included Custer County's commissioners, elected city officials, ranchers, snowmobilers, off-road vehicle users, outfitters, conservationists and others, as well as public meetings in Stanley, Challis, and Ketchum. What I heard made me believe that we could find a positive outcome in the management of the Boulder-White Clouds that benefits all users.

H.R. 3603 represents my best effort at crafting a compromise piece of legislation in a manner where no one is unfairly impacted. We are providing economic stability for Custer County. We are securing roads and trails for today's motorized recreation users and future generations of motorized users. We are working on providing economic viability to ranching families, and we are creating three substantive wilderness areas that have an area half the size of the State of Rhode Island. We are even creating the first handicapped-accessible wheelchair trail into wilderness.

By passing this bill, we can put to rest many longstanding conflicts and move ahead to a stronger, more secure economy in the rugged, beautiful, and productive heart of Idaho. This bill meets the needs of today's users and secures the future for generations of Idahoans who want to continue using and enjoying the beautiful Boulder-White Clouds.

Henry Clay once stated that ``politics is not about ideological purity or moral self-righteousness. It is about governing, and if a politician cannot compromise, he cannot govern effectively.''

Today, we have an opportunity to show that we can, in fact, govern effectively.

I want to thank the following individuals who have helped me over the last 6 years in creating this bill. First, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee and Ranking Member Rahall; subcommittee Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Tom Udall for their work on this. Custer County Commissioners Wayne Butts, Cliff Hansen and Linn Hintze, Blaine County Commissioners Sarah Michaels and Tom Bowman, Stanley Mayor Hannah Stouts, Former Governor Cecil Andrus, Former Senator Jim McClure, Bob Hayes, Bethine Church and the Sawtooth Society, Rick Johnson, Linn Kincannon with the Idaho Conservation League, Bart Koehler, Tim Mahoney, Marcia Argust, Erik Schultze.

And to the staff of the Resources Committee, particularly Erica Tergeson and Doug Crandall, and to Greg Kostka at the legislative counsel who drafted countless versions of this legislation.

And, finally, I want to thank those who put the most work into this, my staff: Lindsay Slater, my chief of staff; Laurel Hall; Josh Heird; and Nikki Watts for their incredible efforts on this piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I have to respond to a couple of the statements that were been made because I know that they have been made over the past by the Sierra Club and others.

First of all, the Wilderness Society and the Campaign for American Wilderness would not be supporting this bill if we actually had wilderness-weakening provisions in this. And while there are compromises in that, and the comment of the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, that we should not have a quid pro quo, that is kind of the nature of a compromise, that there are some things in it that you like and some things that you do not like. There are provisions of this bill which I personally am not in favor of, but they were necessary in order to get the compromise that is necessary in order to pass this legislation and protect these lands.

First of all, the land transfers that are being talked about, they total about 3,600 acres. This is in a county that is 95 public land, over 95 percent. Out of a total of 3.2 million acres in this county, we are talking about transferring about 3,600 acres. These are not the beautiful mountains that you see in the pictures. These are mostly desert lands, sagebrush lands. They will help the county do things like find room for their landfill, other things like that which will help in the economic development of this county.

Most people that have looked at the actual lands that are being transferred are not opposed to them except for a small portion of them that are actually in Stanley, and in Stanley the city of Stanley has to repay the Federal Government for these lands that were actually purchased by the Federal Government.

I would also say that if there was a great deal of concern about these land transfers and what it is going to do to the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, the Sawtooth Society would not be supporting this. Frank Church's wife, Bethine Church, would not be supporting this, as well as the other members of the Sawtooth Society. Neither would the Boulder-White Clouds Council be supporting in this. So it is a compromise. There are provisions in it that you can find that you do not like.

One of the interesting things is that the Sierra Club says there is no Federal reserved water rights on this

Moment of Silence in Memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective

John M. Gibson

One last comment, Madam Speaker. The argument I found so strange by the Sierra Club is that they say that this does not have Federal water right protection in it. And you are right. It does not have Federal water right protection in it. It does not need Federal water right protection in it because the wilderness area is all headwaters. Whatever falls on the ground from the sky, whatever comes out of the springs there, are protected by the wilderness designation. It does not need Federal water right designation because there is no water right to protect. So I have never understood their argument.

But the reality is that we protect water in this bill better than any wilderness bill that has ever passed because the Wilderness Act itself allows for the President on his declaration to go into a wilderness area and build a dam or other things for irrigation purposes if he declares that that is necessary. That is one of the actual compromises that were made when the Wilderness Act was enacted. We take away the President's right to do that. He could not go in and designate certain areas to be used for irrigation and build dams and take water or anything else. The water that falls on the land will be preserved for the Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern, and I appreciate the fact that this is a compromise and that there are people on both sides of this issue, in fact, on all sides, there are multiple sides, who do not like this, who do not think it goes far enough in their direction. But the nature of a compromise is that you try to bring people toward the middle. You try to bring people toward a center that they can say we get more out of this bill than we lose.

If we were to draft the perfect bill that you liked, that the Sierra Club liked, we could never get it passed because the people on the other side would then be violently opposed to it. So what we are trying to do is reach that balance where we can actually protect the Boulder- White Clouds, and if you have ever been there, it is something that deserves protecting.