[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 16, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6629-H6648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               TAUNTON RIVER WILD AND SCENIC DESIGNATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1339 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 415.

                              {time}  1703


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 415) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 
segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a 
component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, with Mr. 
McNulty in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  H.R. 415 would add a 40-mile segment of the Taunton River in 
Massachusetts to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
  Back in 1999, local residents approached their congressman, our late 
colleague Representative Joe Moakley, about securing a wild and scenic 
designation for the Taunton. Representative Moakley supported the idea 
and introduced legislation in the 106th Congress to formally study the 
river. The study was released last year and found the following:
  All 40 miles of the main stem of the Taunton River have been found 
eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation based upon free-flowing 
condition and the presence of one or more outstanding remarkable 
natural or cultural resource values . . . Outstandingly remarkable 
values including fisheries, history and archeology, ecology and 
biodiversity, and scenery and recreation.
  Specifically, the study recommended 26 miles of the river for scenic 
designation and 14 miles, including the lower Taunton, for recreational 
designation.

[[Page H6630]]

  Between November of 2004 and July of 2005, all 10 communities 
abutting the river adopted resolutions supporting the Federal 
designation. The Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study Advisory 
Committee, representing the local communities and State and 
nongovernmental partners, also voted unanimously to support the 
designation.
  So based on years of study and nearly unanimous local support and 
collaboration, Representative Frank introduced H.R. 415 in January of 
last year. The legislation is cosponsored by the entire Commonwealth 
delegation in the House, and the companion bill, which passed out of 
committee in the other body by voice vote, is sponsored by both 
Commonwealth Senators. H.R. 415 was favorably reported by the Natural 
Resources Committee by voice vote.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, this proposal has cleared every single 
procedural hurdle placed in its path, and I believe it's high time we 
approve the legislation.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, a word about the proposed Weaver's Cove LNG 
plant. If the need arises, we can provide more detail, but for now let 
me simply enter the following facts into the Record: The Coast Guard 
captain of the Port for Southeastern New England denied approval for 
the proposed plant based on safety concerns in December of last year. 
In May of this year, the First District Coast Guard commander, Rear 
Admiral Timothy Sullivan, upheld that decision on appeal with a 
thorough review that included more than 50 pages.
  In addition, the Commerce Department issued a decision last month 
finding that ``the national interest furthered by the project does not 
outweigh the project's adverse coastal effects. Of greatest concern are 
the effects on navigational safety resulting from LNG tanker traffic 
called for by the vessel transit plan for the project.''
  These decisions by the Coast Guard and Commerce Department prohibit 
the Weaver's Cove proposal from moving forward for one simple reason: 
The proposal is unsafe.
  The bottom line is this, Mr. Chairman: The Taunton is deserving of 
this designation and this has nothing to do with the safety concerns 
that killed the proposed LNG facility in the area.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 415.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If this body were a debating society or we were involved in a high 
school forensics tournament and this bill were the topic of the 
tournament, I would be giddy with happiness every time one of my teams 
was given the negative side of the debate because there are so many 
reasons why this bill is a bad bill for policy reasons that it would 
almost be a rhetorical feast for even the most inexperienced and naive 
of my high school debaters.
  Let me at least start by addressing three of the main problems with 
this particular bill.
  First, this bill is very clearly an abuse of the Wild and Scenic 
River language. In 1968 when this bill was passed, its purpose was to 
inhibit dams and locks along rivers so that there could be a free flow 
of water on rustic rivers. The verb used in that act was 
``preservation.'' The goal and purpose was preservation. Not 
rehabilitation, not restoration, certainly not economic advantage or 
economic development, but simply preservation. There are some elements 
of this particular river which have the qualities of a wild and scenic 
river, specifically the upper parts of the Taunton River. But the lower 
parts of the Taunton River, what is sometimes called segment 4, are the 
elements of this river which provide major problems. They are not and 
do not have the qualities of a wild and scenic river.
  You've seen the pictures before. All you need to do is look at the 
pictures and you recognize this is not the design of a wild and scenic 
river as envisioned in the 1968 legislation. In fact, the only part of 
this river that's scenic is the graffiti that's found on the bridges 
and the human embankments that are part of this river system. The only 
thing that's wild about this river are the gangs that wrote this 
graffiti in the first place. These are not the qualities of which we 
are looking for. In fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize 
that if you are floating down this river, it is not a wild and scenic 
if you can look over and see the local McDonald's right there on the 
bank.
  What we also have is the understanding that this lower portion is 
supposed to be for recreation. We could believe it would be for 
recreation if you believe that tugboat races or barge surfing would be 
considered recreational activities. This is not the kind of material 
that one would want to find floating in a river for Boy Scout troops to 
try to paddle their canoes around or by.
  This bill simply violates the concept of the wild and scenic river. 
The wild and scenic river was never intended to go through an 
industrial park. It was always intended to be water that was surrounded 
by public lands so that you could control and preserve both the water 
and the embankment of those public lands, not something that goes 
through a privatized residential/industrial park.
  Also, if you look at section 1 of the act that it specifically talks 
not only about preservation of the water but the embankment as well, 
that actually in a real wild and scenic river, the National Park 
Service is required to take the embankment as well up to a quarter of a 
mile away and put that aside. Obviously, you can't do this because 
there is no public land on this lower Taunton River, although the 
National Park Service does have eminent domain power; so if you really 
wanted to create a true wild and scenic river, we could probably 
accomplish that deal if that was really what you are after.
  This bill provides economic advantages to some elements but not to 
others. In 2002 the sponsor and other members of the Massachusetts 
delegation received an earmark to try to dredge this river, a fact 
which should disqualify it within the National Park Service criteria in 
the first place. Yet what it does now when we want to make this a wild 
and scenic river is simply take the law and turn it on its head. This 
bill gives current businesses disadvantages and some current businesses 
advantages, as is clearly illustrated in the newspaper articles that 
are coming from this area already where people are wanting to know what 
we do to see how it impacts, positively or negatively, their business 
operation. And that was never, never, never the intent of the National 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
  Secondly, this is simply an abuse of the system, an abuse of power. 
In the year 2000, this Congress authorized a study of the Taunton 
River, the upper Taunton River. The authorization was for the upper 
Taunton River. The appropriation was to study the upper Taunton River. 
And yet mysteriously the National Park Service, a system that has 
millions of dollars of backlog, a system that has 37 studies still in 
backlog for Wild and Scenic River projects, a system that is always 
talking about how pressed they are for cash, volunteered in actual 
disregard to the legislative direction and legislative intent to study 
something never intended to be studied, never directed to be studied, 
and spent roughly $400,000 to do it, in total violation to the aspect 
of Congress and the requirements of Congress.
  One low-level employee within the National Park Service felt in some 
way compelled to violate Federal law to study the wrong part of the 
river and to spend money illegally to study the wrong part of the river 
and then in his report had the audacity to say, well, this would be the 
most developed river we would ever have in this kind of status. When 
asked why he did that, his response was very simple to us in committee: 
He did what the river would choose to do if it could speak.

                              {time}  1715

  He said that twice. Not only do we have a mid-level bureaucrat who is 
talking to water, but he is now interpreting the will of water. And if 
in 2002 it wished to be dredged and in 2008 it wishes to be wild and 
scenic, this must be schizophrenic water at the same time.
  Here is the problem: When the National Park Service came up with 
their report, they did not come up with one alternative. The sponsor 
has chosen one of the alternatives to make part of this bill. They call 
that the ``environmentally preferred'' alternative. But there were two 
other alternatives

[[Page H6631]]

which I compare to the rational and the intelligent alternatives that 
did not include the lower Taunton River. And, in fact, in this so-
called second version that has now become part of this bill, the report 
said it was problematic that there is no precedent for this kind of 
action, no precedent for this kind of action, but it does meet 
political expectations.
  Let me give a third reason, and yes indeed, this is an energy reason. 
The potential LNG port which would be put in Weaver's Cove would have 
been the largest taxpaying entity. And it was not agreed to to move on 
so far, but it has not been stopped. This project is still viable until 
the year 2015. This bill, if passed, is the only way to permanently 
make this a moot issue.
  This language is the language of the report, which simply meant that 
the current proposal was to be rejected but that they encouraged an 
additional proposal to try and work out the situational problems to be 
encouraged. And they gave them the time to do that. The actual report 
encourages them to review this issue one more time. So it is true that 
this issue of an LNG port is still on the table. And the only way it 
can be permanently taken off the table is by passage of this type of 
bill.
  Now why would that impact me because I live in Utah and I really 
don't care about this river all that much? It is simply because one of 
the members of the delegation came down on the floor this morning and 
said that last year 350,000, according to his numbers, individuals in 
the State of Massachusetts had to be given subsidies under LIHEAP, paid 
by all the taxpayers of the Nation, because they did not have the 
ability to handle the energy crisis within their State and that, 
indeed, heat was not something that was negotiable. However, the 
problem is, why don't we simply solve the problem by providing the 
energy there so that you don't have to tell the citizens of 
Massachusetts to freeze in the dark but solve the problem yourselves?
  There was an interesting discussion on the floor during the rule 
which the gentleman, Mr. Hastings of Washington, was criticized for not 
having LNG ports in his home State. I wish to simply respond that it 
was a factual accuracy that has total irrelevance to the issue, because 
Washington State does not need LNG ports. It has gas pipelines. The 
entire West is provided by gas pipelines that do not reach to the 
eastern coast. The only way Massachusetts can step up and solve their 
own problem is by having not fewer but more LNG ports. That is the only 
option that is left to them. And this bill does inhibit that particular 
option.
  Now with that are only three of the many reasons why this bill should 
not be passed, why this bill is poor public policy, why this bill does 
abuse the statute and change the meaning of the words that were 
intended for a wild and scenic river, why this bill does disrespect to 
this body and how we decided to try and do this study in the first 
place by ignoring the will of Congress and ignoring the authorization 
and appropriation of Congress and going off on some other particular 
way. And it does stop any potential improvements of an LNG port on this 
river which is desperately needed in that part of the country.
  Those are only three of the possible reasons. There are others. I'm 
sure we will hear from those others as this discussion continues on.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Just one point of clarification before I recognize the 
sponsor of the legislation is the issue with the LIHEAP reference. 
LIHEAP doesn't address the ability to get energy. It creates a 
situation where people can afford to buy energy.
  With that, let me introduce the distinguished Congressman from the 
Commonwealth, Mr. Frank, the sponsor of the legislation, for as much 
time as he may consume.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by 
regretting the animus toward the people we represent that we've just 
heard. The gentleman from Utah said, ``Wild and scenic. The only thing 
wild about this are the gangs there.'' The city of Fall River, the 
gentleman has an amendment that would exempt from this bill the city of 
Fall River, Massachusetts, a city full of working people, many of them 
immigrants who became American citizens, and their descendants, from 
Portugal and elsewhere, people who worked in the garment industry and 
the textile industry, a city which has suffered economically the fate 
of de-industrialization.
  Characterizing them and saying ``The only thing scenic about them is 
their graffiti, the only thing wild about them is their gangs,'' they 
don't deserve that denigration, no matter what political points people 
want to score. If you want to come after me, if you want to come after 
Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island or Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts, we'll 
deal with it. But please don't denigrate these hardworking people. 
Don't impute to them gang activity that doesn't exist. The gentleman 
who accused them of gang activity has no idea of what goes on there and 
he makes an inaccurate statement.
  The only thing scenic is the graffiti? Is that not scenic? This is 
the Battleship Massachusetts. It's part of a national park. It's one of 
the few battleships that comes with a Patriot missile, because I got 
Raytheon to put it up there. It's a park, a park for patriotic people. 
Do you see any graffiti on the Battleship Massachusetts?
  In fact, that is part of the problem here. Apparently we're told it's 
okay to have a wild and scenic river. And of course we're not saying it 
should be wild and scenic. We are talking about a part of the statute 
that says you can have recreation. And these are people who have 
decided that in part because they have lost their industrial base that 
they had for a variety of reasons, they will develop new economic 
activity that is based on their river.
  By the way, one of the bridges that is talked about, one of these 
structures, we have gotten money to take down. Like a number of cities 
that walled themselves off from the river, Fall River has appreciated 
the great beauty and attractiveness of that waterfront. And they would 
like to tear it down.
  But here is the issue. Is environmentalism only for suburbanites? Do 
working people who have found themselves in economic distress have no 
right to try and enhance the quality of their environment?
  Let me have some more of those pictures down here. Let me have some 
more to show people what we are talking about. We are not talking about 
only what was pictured.
  This is part of the area that would be banned from the bill under the 
gentleman from Utah's amendment. So is this. Part of it is Mr. 
McGovern's district. Part of it is my district. It impacts the other 
districts. Yes, it is not everywhere beautiful. These are people who 
haven't had the good fortune to live always in land that was so 
attractive. But they would like to try and improve their situation. 
They would like to be able to enhance the quality of their environment 
without being denigrated as gang members or graffitists. Yes, there are 
a few people who do graffiti. The overwhelming majority in every single 
community along this river on both sides has asked for this 
designation. It was begun by our late and beloved colleague Joe Moakley 
before anybody heard of LNG. By the way, on LNG, there is an LNG plant 
in the district of our colleague, Mr. Markey. We in the Massachusetts 
delegation overwhelmingly supported a second LNG plant just a little 
bit offshore, just north of Boston that has been approved. Many of us 
support a third one. It is not a case of rejecting LNG. And I notice 
that people on the other side, those who think Fall River is just full 
of graffiti artists and gang members and don't know that wonderful city 
and the decent, patriotic people who live there, they circulated an 
editorial from the Boston Herald saying this isn't needed. And the 
Herald editorial, the op-ed piece that they circulated, concluded by 
saying, of course, it's not necessary because the LNG plant is dead. 
It's not simply the current LNG plant that has been rejected. It was 
the Coast Guard saying that in that narrow waterway, with the bridges 
that have to be traversed, you can't do it.
  Carlos Gutierrez said ``no,'' the Secretary of Commerce. I've got to 
say, I didn't know that I would be defending the Bush administration so 
much here. I know I will be defending them against the Republicans on 
the questions of the housing bill. But we were also told there was this 
terrible conspiracy with the Park Service under George Bush. I don't 
think the Interior Department

[[Page H6632]]

under President Bush was engaged in this kind of chicanery that has 
been imputed to them.
  We are talking about the desire of people who live in an area that 
has some industrial activity, but some residential and recreational 
areas, who want to protect what they have and make it better. They have 
asked us, and we have worked with them, to tear down an elevated 
highway. We are working with them to enhance the quality of their 
environment in a way that will also improve things economically. Every 
Member of Congress whose district is remotely near here strongly 
supports this bill. Every city and town along the way supports this. 
Every elected legislator and local official supports it. For them to be 
told essentially that ``it's too gritty, it's too grubby, you aren't 
people who we had in mind when we talked about the beauties of the 
environment, you don't deserve this because you've had graffiti and 
some of you belong to gangs''--an inaccurate characterization of the 
whole city--to deny them that is I think a degree of cruelty, frankly, 
that I hope this House does not encompass.
  I and others have tried very hard to take into account what other 
Members think about their districts. To repudiate what all of the 
Members of Congress, five of us very directly involved here, think 
would be important for this particular area because an LNG plant that 
has been rejected by the Department of Commerce and by the Coast Guard 
and cannot be resuscitated, might some day in 10 years be resuscitated, 
and by then we will have had enough other LNG plants that it wouldn't 
even have any demand probably, that these people should be told, just 
the 9 miles, conveniently, the city of Fall River, the urban area, the 
area of hardworking immigrants who became American citizens, that they 
should be told that they don't qualify for environmental protection is 
a decision that I hope this House would not make.
  I thank the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from West 
Virginia for the consideration they have given. It may in part be 
relevant that these are Members who themselves understand the desire of 
working people, of people who have lived in these kinds of areas, to 
get the same kind of consideration for their environmental needs as 
wealthy suburbanites.
  I hope that the bill is passed without amendments that would cripple 
it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate very much the gentleman from 
Massachusetts standing up to defend his constituency. It is the right 
thing to do. It is the proper thing for him to do. It is his job and 
purpose. But once again, I want him to focus in on the reality of the 
situation, which is not the quality of the individuals in 
Massachusetts. It is simply the issue at hand. This, by the way, is 
that same battleship--assuming there should be a battleship in a wild 
and scenic river zone--this is the same battleship from the other angle 
which is decidedly less pristine and much more urbanized.
  But the issue at hand that the gentlemen on the other side need to 
deal with is that the purpose of the act is for preservation, not 
rehabilitation, not for economic development, which are the very words 
that were just used. That is not what the Wild and Scenic River Act was 
ever intended to do. And that is what is going to be done in this 
particular bill. That is why we are abusing the vocabulary of the Wild 
and Scenic River Act. And we must focus back in on what we are doing. 
Indeed, the proposed LNG port is in an existing brownfield, zoned for 
maritime industrial use. But the issue is for what purpose are the 
verbs and the nouns in the Wild and Scenic River Act supposed to be 
implied? And does it apply to the lower Taunton? And the answer is 
simply ``no.'' It doesn't meet the definition.
  With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, unless, 
Mr. Chairman, you would like us to reserve and then come back.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I do rise in strong opposition to this bill, H.R. 415, a bill to 
designate parts of the lower Taunton River in Massachusetts as part of 
the National Wild and Scenic River system, especially, Mr. Chairman, in 
a time when American families are paying $4.11 for a gallon of 
gasoline.
  The gentleman, the author of the bill that just spoke and his 
colleagues from the Bay State, I will give them the fact that they want 
to do things for the lower Taunton and the citizens of their district 
that live on either side of that river. But this really, in my opinion, 
doesn't quite pass the smell test.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. McGOVERN. Two questions. One is how does LNG reduce the price of 
gasoline at the pump for the average citizen? And two, how many LNG 
facilities do you have in Georgia? I think it is one. We have two up 
and running in Massachusetts and a third one permitted, so don't 
lecture us about not doing our part in addressing the energy crisis.
  Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, basically in response to my friend 
from Massachusetts, it is the same response that my colleague from Utah 
made in reference to the gentleman from Washington State when this same 
argument came up during the discussion of the rule.
  But as the gentleman from Utah points out, the whole purpose of this 
act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, was not for redevelopment. And I 
heard the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) just talk about 
tearing down a highway, an elevated highway to make this area more 
scenic. I would like my colleagues to focus in on this poster of the 
lower Taunton River and see how unscenic it is. It may be wild, but it 
is certainly not scenic.
  This act was never designed for redevelopment and for tearing down 
bridges and highways. This is not the time to do that. Clearly, this is 
not a wild and scenic river and doesn't meet that designation.
  I would like to continue, Mr. Chairman, and say that when the Natural 
Resources Committee held hearings on this bill, representatives from 
the National Park Service testified that this area would be the most 
industrialized river ever to be given this designation.
  Along the shoreline of the Taunton River, you can find a hair salon, 
a shipyard, a port area, and yes, even a McDonald's. Now, Mr. Chairman, 
I don't know about you, but I don't see anything that is scenic about 
this industrialized area.
  Furthermore, as a result of this designation, this Congress would 
prevent future development along the river and would therefore prohibit 
the proposed use of the Taunton River as a terminal for liquefied 
natural gas storage and distribution facility.
  Again I reference this poster, right here, this is 73 acres of that 
proposed LNG facility that I am talking about. When brought online, 
this facility would have the capacity to provide the needed heating oil 
for up to 35 percent of all New England households. Let me repeat that, 
the needed heating for up to 35 percent of all New England households.
  It seems to me that this majority seems perfectly content to continue 
with flawed energy policy that prevents a major liquefied natural gas 
plant from being brought online, inevitably forcing them to later 
expand the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, to make 
up for New England's lost home heating ability. At a time when the 
domestic supply of energy sources is the most important issue in this 
country, the Democratic majority would rather stymie the growth of 
supply.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GINGREY. The Democratic majority would rather stymie the growth 
of supply through this bill than to allow us to debate meaningful 
legislation that would help hardworking American families out of this 
energy crisis.
  I urge all of my colleagues to oppose H.R. 415.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to reaffirm that 
the United States Coast Guard has found that the Weaver's Cove LNG 
proposal was unsafe. The Department of Commerce came to that same 
conclusion. On appeal, it came to that same

[[Page H6633]]

conclusion. As a result, the Weaver's Cove LNG proposal is already 
dead. Decisions have already been made on that subject, and have 
absolutely nothing to do with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act or 
designation.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and also cosponsor of this legislation, 
Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I have spoken at 
length about this issue this morning, but this debate is absurd. I 
mean, we have people holding up pictures that aren't even the right 
picture. The picture that the gentleman from Georgia held up, I should 
tell him everything south of that bridge is not covered by this 
designation. This is fiction that is being brought to the floor today.
  The gentleman talks about LIHEAP. Yes, we do need emergency fuel 
assistance in New England. We have cold winters. But LNG doesn't 
translate into LIHEAP. And in terms of what we are doing to promote 
liquefied natural gas measures, we are doing much more than you are in 
Georgia. We have two facilities already up and running, and we have 
another one licensed. You know, Mr. Gingrey, help us out, do a little 
more in your State. Join in this cause to help us become more energy 
independent. Take your responsibility. We are doing it in 
Massachusetts. So please do not lecture us on the fact that we are not 
living up to our responsibility. We are.
  The bottom line is, as Mr. Frank pointed out, this is a debate about 
whether the hardworking people of Fall River and Somerset and other 
communities deserve to get this designation on the lower Taunton River. 
And they do.
  And it really is offensive to hear the way these people have been 
characterized, the way these hardworking citizens have been 
characterized. I am proud to represent Fall River along with 
Congressman Frank. These are good people and they don't deserve this 
and this bill, quite frankly, should not be subject to petty politics, 
and that is what is happening here.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to point out, this is a park 
that would be excluded. Behind it you do see a superstructure. It walls 
off the city. That is what Mr. McGovern and I have gotten money to take 
down, without regard to the wild and scenic, but we want to take this 
down and open up this waterfront even more. That is what you will deny 
us by killing this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield an additional 1 minute to Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to have a course in basic 
energy policy here so my colleagues know the difference between 
liquefied natural gas and the gasoline you put in your automobile and 
the oil people use to heat their homes. I mean, listening to this 
debate here, it seems like you have no clue about the energy that our 
country relies on. So let's get our facts straight here. Let's stop the 
fiction and let's do the right thing. Let's pass this bill. The people 
of Fall River deserve it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate once again the comments that have been made here. I 
appreciate the defense of constituencies. I appreciate that there is a 
difference between gasoline that goes in a car and gasoline that heats 
a home, and LIHEAP does deal with gas that does heat homes.
  But once again, the issue is not the same. I want to focus on the 
issue. The beautiful picture you had here of the park does not qualify 
for the purpose of a wild and scenic river designation. That is why 
under the law, you are supposed to take a quarter mile on either side 
of the river and stop everything from that area. It is already 
developed. Development does not qualify even under the concept of 
recreation under the letter of the law.
  This bill is bad because the study itself violated the law. Congress 
told the National Park Service to study the upper river and paid for a 
study of the upper river which has legitimate merits to it, and instead 
they studied the lower river in violation of the congressional 
directive.
  Once they wrote their report, they still said it was problematic. 
There is no precedent for the lower river. It is still the problem of 
the details of what the river is supposed to be.
  The department still recommends not doing this. The National Park 
Service recommends not doing this until the entire study has been 
totally completed. So once again we are back to this issue of what does 
it mean to have a wild and scenic designation?
  The upper Taunton River has those qualities. The lower Taunton River 
does not because the purpose is for preservation, not for economic 
development, not for creating more urban parks, not for changing the 
landscape on the sides. It is for the purpose of preserving a river in 
its native state. That was the purpose of, and that is the intent, and 
there has never been a proposal to this date that is this far afield 
from the purpose of the 1968 act. Never. That is why there is no 
precedent ever for this type of action. That's why this bill should not 
go forward.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains at this point?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona has 15 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Utah has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Grijalva for offering me 
the time, and Chairman Frank for sponsoring this legislation, H.R. 415, 
the Taunton River Wild and Scenic Act, and let me just say as a Member 
of Congress from an adjoining district in Rhode Island, I want to 
repudiate the comments to the effect that these urban rivers are not 
wild and scenic just because they are in an urban area.
  We have the Blackstone River Valley Heritage Corridor which is the 
Woonasquatucket River which runs right into Providence, Rhode Island, 
and you have a very urban river. Well, I will tell you, it is right in 
downtown Providence. And every weekend you have roughly 250,000 people 
from my State descend on downtown Providence during the weekend in 
order to watch the water fire because it is one of the great activities 
along the riverfront that takes place that draws people down to the 
riverfront every weekend during the summer months, and the spring 
months and fall months.
  We also have children from Central Falls and Providence who wouldn't 
otherwise know that they live near a river because most of it is 
overgrown and yet they live merely 20 yards from the river. And now a 
lot of that is being opened up and they are gaining access to it, and 
because of the Clean Water Act that was passed in the late 1970s, we 
are seeing some of the indigenous fish come back and we are able to see 
these children go out and go fishing on the river and be able to catch 
fish and go canoeing and see that they can enjoy the environment as 
well.
  The fact of the matter is I for one cannot understand why just 
because a river is running through a city-like environment, why 
children and the people who live in that urban environment cannot enjoy 
that river any differently than someone who lives in a real suburban 
and rural area, and that is something I want to disabuse everyone from.
  I certainly think that the people who live in our inner cities of 
America deserve just as much of an opportunity to go out and enjoy the 
water. Frankly, it is the only open space that many of them ever gain 
access to. When you look at Heritage Harbor that you have seen these 
pictures of where the battleship Massachusetts is, we have Boys & Girls 
Clubs and we have the Boy Scouts and so forth use that battleship 
Massachusetts every single weekend over the course of the summertime. 
They are down there in that battleship cove, and they come from Rhode 
Island and Massachusetts.
  This is a very active park. I think this designation fits very 
handsomely into what the activities of that area are. We need to 
preserve that area, and I think it would be disastrous to have further 
development that would spoil what is going on there.
  The urban centers of New England are coming back alive. We lost the

[[Page H6634]]

manufacturing. We've lost so many of the areas that were keeping the 
industrial revolution alive. What is bringing these areas back is the 
tourism and the creative arts. People want to come back to these areas 
for those reasons, and that's why we want to preserve them.
  The last thing we want to do is destroy what we have here which is 
unique to New England and that is the aesthetic value of these 
communities by bringing in more new construction, and that's why we 
want to set back the clock and keep these communities the way they were 
when they were originally built.
  So you're right, we want to keep them historically accurate, and 
that's why we want them preserved time immemorial and for our children 
and down the line.
  So that's why I think the Coast Guard was right, the National Park 
Service was right, and I hope my colleagues join me and all of my 
colleagues in the surrounding area and every single community who has 
voted in favor of this designation from the surrounding area in 
supporting H.R. 415 and making this historic Taunton Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act a reality.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Once again I appreciate the comments from the 
gentleman, and I would like once again to try and focus on what is 
indeed the issue. The State of Rhode Island, the State of Massachusetts 
do, indeed, have coastal zone management acts in which they get Federal 
money to help maintain the quality of their coastal zones and rivers. 
The fact that they are cool rivers running in urban areas is wonderful. 
You can do it, it's great, but not under the definition of this act.
  When the gentleman from Rhode Island says you want to put it back to 
the way it were, it disqualifies it from the concept of preservation of 
existing facilities and preservation of existing embankments. That's 
why you have struck too far when you go into the lower Taunton River.
  Mr. Chairman, I have letters in opposition to this bill from the 
Shipbuilders Council of America, as well as from three companies who 
actually do business on the lower Taunton River who are worried about 
the kind of economic disadvantage they may be facing that I would like 
to be placed in the Record.


                              Shipbuilders Council of America,

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 2007.
     Hon. Bob Bishop,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and 
         Public Lands, Natural Resources Committee, 1329 Longworth 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Grijalva: I am writing to express the 
     opposition of the Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA) to 
     H.R. 415, legislation to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
     (WSRA) to designate segments of the Taunton River as a 
     component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 
     Specifically, SCA is strongly opposed to the inclusion under 
     the WRSA of the Lower Taunton River (Segment 4).
       The Lower Taunton River does not meet designation criteria 
     for inclusion in the WSRA. The WSRA requires that a river be 
     ``free flowing'' defined as ``existing or flowing in a 
     natural condition without impoundment, diversion, 
     straightening, rip-rapping, or other modifications of the 
     waterway''. There is today significant industrialization 
     along Segment 4 of the Taunton River including bridges, a 
     power plant, sewage plants, marinas and shipyards, and 
     granite bulkheads. In addition, this portion of the Taunton 
     has been federally dredged for more than 125 years.
       The SCA does not oppose designation under the WSRA of the 
     upper portions of the Taunton River. However, inclusion of 
     the Lower Taunton will harm existing businesses and 
     jeopardize crucial industrial jobs.
       SCA is the national association representing U.S. 
     commercial shipyards. SCA represents approximately 40 
     shipyard companies that own and operate more than 100 
     shipyards on all three U.S. coasts, the Great Lakes and 
     Hawaii. SCA member yards employ more than 30,000 shipyard 
     workers. Our companies build, repair and maintain America's 
     commercial fleet as well as small and mid-sized vessels for 
     the U.S. military and other government agencies. SCA member 
     yards also repair and maintain Navy combatant ships.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Allen Walker,
     President.
                                  ____



                                  Gladding-Hearn Shipbuilding,

                                                 October 25, 2007.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Pete Domenici,
     Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.

     Subject: Opposition to Bill S868.

     Reference: Bill S868, To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
       to include segments of the Taunton River in the 
       Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the 
       National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems.

       Dear Chairman Bingaman and Senator Domenici: Please accept 
     this letter expressing our concern about and objection to the 
     above reference Bill S868, to amend the Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers Act (WSRA) to include segments of the Taunton River. 
     If passed, this designation will prevent our company from 
     maintaining and expanding our commercial waterfront facility 
     and will cost the Commonwealth of Massachusetts much needed 
     jobs in manufacturing.
       Since 1955 Gladding-Hearn Shipbuilding, Duclos Corporation 
     (www.gladding-hearn.com) has been located on the western 
     shore of the Taunton River in Somerset, on a site where ships 
     have been built for more than 150 years. In our 52 years, we 
     have built more than 360 commercial vessels for service 
     throughout the world. We also provide regular service and 
     maintenance for vessels operating on the east coast.
       With annual revenues of about $18 million, we provide 
     employment to more than 100 skilled shipbuilders of all 
     trades and maintain active accounts with more than 800 
     vendors. We currently have 22 vessels under contract with a 
     backlog extending into early 2010. These contracts include 
     passenger vessels, pilot boats, ship docking tugs and patrol 
     boats for the US Navy. In September of 2006 we were awarded a 
     GSA Multiple Award Schedule on which we now have 8 standard 
     vessels listed.
       In order to meet our current contractual commitments and 
     anticipated growing demands we are investing about $1,800,000 
     in new fabrication and storage facilities that will create 
     the capacity for about 50 new skilled manufacturing jobs.
       We are most concerned that the designation of the Taunton 
     River under the WSRA will prevent us from maintaining and 
     expanding our marine railway launching facility and our deep 
     draft dock. In the last six months alone we have turned away 
     several large new build vessel contracts because we do not 
     currently have the railway capacity or draft to launch these 
     vessels. As a result, we have submitted the first phase of 
     our plan to the Army Corps of Engineers to increase the 
     capacity of our marine railway. In the absence of the WSRA, 
     we would not be required to apply for a permit for this 
     project as it would be considered a maintenance project. But 
     even though the Taunton River is only under consideration for 
     the WSRA designation, we are subject the additional expense, 
     time and scrutiny of the Army Corp and the National Park 
     Service (NPS) under what appears to be very loose and 
     subjective WSRA review process.
       We applaud the NPS and the Taunton River Study Committee 
     for their efforts toward designating the Upper Segments 1, 2 
     and 3 but strenuously oppose the inclusion of the Lower 
     Taunton River (Segment 4) because it does not meet any of the 
     ``outstandingly remarkable resource value'' criteria required 
     by the WSRA. The WSRA requires that a river is ``free 
     flowing'' which is defined as ``existing or flowing in a 
     natural condition without impoundment, diversion, 
     straightening, rip-rapping, or other modifications of the 
     waterway''. By contrast Segment 4 can be mostly characterize 
     by two bridges, a power plant, two sewage plants, several 
     marinas and boat builders, a former oil tank farm, granite 
     bulkheads, and a federally dredged channel since 1870. The 
     Port of Fall River is the second largest port in the 
     Commonwealth and is classified under the Massachusetts 
     Coastal Zone Management Program as a ``Designated Port 
     Area'', This policy ``protects and promotes appropriate 
     marine industrial development in port areas with key 
     industrial attributes''.
       The NPS Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study fails to 
     consider potential impacts on businesses and property owners 
     along the river as it is required to do. We have no record of 
     any attempt by the NPS or the Taunton Wild and Scenic River 
     Study Committee to solicit our participation in the process 
     of developing the Stewardship Plan and Draft Study.
       If the ``standards'' to designate a river under the WRSA 
     can be so distorted then what hope do we have to maintain and 
     expand our waterfront facilities to accommodate the future 
     growth of our business. Including Segment 4 of the Taunton 
     River in the WSRA program is not what Congress intended for 
     this noble legislation.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  Peter J. Duclos,
     President, Director of Business Development.
                                  ____

     From: Donald V. Church, Owner, Seaboats, Inc.
     Date: October 30, 2007
     Subject: Act to Designate the Taunton Wild and Scenic River.
     To: Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 
         of the House Natural Resources Committee
       I have reviewed the most recent studies of the ``Taunton 
     Wild and Scenic River Study'' as compiled by the Park 
     Service. In my opinion, their report is totally out of 
     context with the lower part of the river as I know it.
       The upper reaches of this river are as described ``wild and 
     scenic'', however, the lower segment 4 could not under any 
     stretch

[[Page H6635]]

     of the imagination be classified this way. The lower segment 
     has power plants, old oil refineries, vessel repair docks, 
     shipyards, bridges that should be removed, Battleship Cove 
     Museum, yacht clubs, night spots and a designated port area.
       Fall River is the second deepest harbor in Massachusetts, 
     as such it should have been on a regular dredge maintenance 
     schedule. Dredging has not even been discussed since the 
     1950s.
       A few years ago, a rumor from the Newport, RI pilot office 
     indicated that the Brightman Street Bridge would be removed. 
     If this were to happen, I believe that the river from there 
     north, would be open to economic development. The rumor, 
     however, was unfounded. As a result of not dredging and the 
     hardship of the restrictions of the bridge, Shell Oil was 
     closed and the only gasoline terminal left in South Eastern 
     Massachusetts is in Braintree, a loss for the area east of 
     Fall River and South of Boston. Instead of economic 
     development, it created an economic hardship.
       Our company began in 1977 in Rhode Island as a very small 
     organization. However, in Rhode Island we did not own our 
     facility but were on leased land. Our company became 
     concerned about the future as the mayor of Providence was 
     repeatedly suggesting a complete revitalization of the harbor 
     with the usual hotels, restaurants, aquariums, etc. with no 
     room for commercial marine ventures.
       With an uncertain future, we started looking for a more 
     business-friendly city and were able to purchase our land and 
     dock in Fall River, MA. The company relocated in 1991 and 
     from a small start-up company, we have grown steadily and now 
     have contributed over 24 million dollars to the economy each 
     year, with a payroll over 5 million.
       Seaboats is continuing to grow. We are obligated to an 
     expenditure of another $25,000,000 this year with a payroll 
     of over $5,000,000 and the possibility of an additional 
     $30,000,000 in equipment investment.
       As with any business, if you do not continue to grow, 
     eventually you fade away. If the lower Taunton River is 
     designated as a ``wild and scenic river'', it will give the 
     NPS the authority to review certain construction activities 
     that require a federal permit or other federal assistance. 
     Specifically, Section 7(a) of the WSR act stipulates that 
     ``No department or agency of the U.S. shall assist by loan, 
     grant, license, or otherwise in the construction of any water 
     resource project that would have a direct and adverse effect 
     on the values of which such river was established or 
     determined by the Secretary charged with its 
     administration''.
       What this would mean in the case of the entire Taunton 
     River is that any ``water resources project'' that requires a 
     federal permit (such as a U.S. Army Corps dredging permit), 
     and that involves construction activity that would affect the 
     flow of the river, could be subject to review by, and require 
     approval from, the NPS. The NPS has very broad discretion to 
     consider whether a project will have an impact on the values 
     for which the river has been designated as a Wild and Scenic 
     River--for example, impacts on water quality or fisheries 
     resources. If it is determined by the NPS that the project 
     will have a ``direct and adverse effect,'' the federal permit 
     or other assistance to the project cannot be issued.
       In conclusion, I cannot see any benefit to the economy by 
     designating the lower portion of the Taunton River ``Wild and 
     Scenic'' nor can I see any benefit to the environment. The 
     only possible effect would be to stop economic development.
                                  ____



                                          Fortier Boats, Inc.,

                                   Somerset, MA, October 25, 2007.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Pete Domenici,
     Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.

     Subject: Opposition to Bill S868.
     Reference: Bill S868, To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
       to include segments of the Taunton River in the 
       Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the 
       National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems.

       Dear Chairman Bingaman and Senator Domenici: Please accept 
     this letter expressing our concern about and objection to the 
     above reference Bill S868, to amend the Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers Act (WSRA) to include segments of the Taunton River. 
     If passed, this legislation will prevent our company from 
     maintaining and expanding our commercial waterfront facility 
     and cost the Commonwealth of Massachusetts much needed jobs 
     in manufacturing.
       Since the 1940s, the site now occupied by Fortier Boats, 
     Inc. (www.fortierboats.com) has been located on the western 
     shore of the Taunton River in Somerset. It has always been a 
     marina facility. In our 30 years, we have built more than 500 
     boats for commercial and recreational use for service 
     throughout the world. We also provide regular service and 
     maintenance for vessels operating on the east coast.
       With annual revenues of about $1.8 million, we provide 
     employment to 10 skilled boat builders of all trades and 
     maintain active accounts with more than 300 vendors, We 
     currently have a backlog of one year. We have just completed 
     a new building adjacent to our existing building at the cost 
     of $1,000,000 in order to keep up with the growing needs of 
     our present and future customers.
       We are most concerned that the designation of the Taunton 
     River under the WSRA will prevent us from maintaining and 
     expanding our marine travel lift facility and our deep draft 
     dock. We are now in the present stages of changing our 
     facility to meet the needs of the Storm Water Prevention Act. 
     In the absence of the WSRA, we would not be required to apply 
     for a permit for this project, as it would be considered a 
     maintenance project. But even though the Taunton River is 
     only under consideration for the WSRA designation, we are 
     subject to the additional expense, time and scrutiny of the 
     Army Corp and the National Park Service (NPS) under what 
     appears to be a very loose and subjective WSRA review 
     process.
       We applaud the NPS and the Taunton River Study Committee 
     for their efforts toward designating the Upper Segments 1, 2 
     and 3 but strenuously oppose the inclusion of the Lower 
     Taunton River (Segment 4) because it does not meet any of the 
     ``outstandingly remarkable resource value'' criteria required 
     by the WSRA. The WSRA requires that a river is ``free 
     flowing'' which is defined as ``existing or flowing in a 
     natural condition without impoundment, diversion, 
     straightening, rip-rapping, or other modifications of the 
     waterway''. By contrast Segment 4 can be mostly characterized 
     by two bridges, a power plant, two sewage plants, several 
     marinas and boat builders, a former oil tank farm, granite 
     bulkheads, and a federally dredged channel since 1870. The 
     Port of Fall River is the second largest port in the 
     Commonwealth and is classified under the Massachusetts 
     Coastal Zone Management Program as a ``Designated Port 
     Area''. This policy ``protects and promotes appropriate 
     marine industrial development in port areas with key 
     industrial attributes''.
       The NPS Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study fails to 
     consider potential impacts on businesses and property owners 
     along the river as it is required to do. We have no record of 
     any attempt by the NPS or the Taunton Wild and Scenic River 
     Study Committee to solicit our participation in the process 
     of developing the Stewardship Plan and Draft Study.
       If the ``standards'' to designate a river under the WRSA 
     can be so distorted then what hope do we have to maintain and 
     expand our waterfront facilities to accommodate the future 
     growth of our business? Including Segment 4 of the Taunton 
     River in the WSRA program is not what Congress intended for 
     this noble legislation.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 Roger W. Fortier,
                                    President, Fortier Boats, Inc.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me yield to the sponsor of the 
legislation, Mr. Frank, for such time as he may consume.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I concede three business 
people out of this whole area opposed it. So we did not pass this by 
unanimous consent. Three people were there. Fortunately, my area that I 
represent is not the Senate. You don't need unanimous consent. If you 
get 98.9 percent, that's good enough.
  What particularly puzzles me, though, is the gentleman from Utah 
apparently thinks that Congress in 1968 reached the ultimate in wisdom 
and that because something was passed in 1968 it can never be changed. 
We're not talking about interpreting the statute, we're talking about 
passing one. And, in fact, our views of the environment have evolved.
  As my colleague from Rhode Island eloquently put it, the nature of 
the economy of New England has evolved. Back then it was a very 
industrial economy. We have lost that industrial base for reasons not, 
I think, largely the fault of the people there, and they are trying now 
to go in a new direction.
  So here is where it is. If you were ever industrialized, according to 
the gentleman from Utah, that's it. The environment is not for you. He 
says, well, why doesn't the State do it? Probably because we are 
talking about navigable waterways, and as there are limits to what the 
State can impose on navigable waterways. This is a navigable waterway. 
There is Federal responsibility. So we are coming here to the Federal 
Government to empower the State. Every single community there. 
Governors. The previous Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, was for 
this. The current Governor is for it. But again the gentleman says, 
well, because it didn't meet this definition of 1968 you can never do 
it again.
  We are talking about recreation, recreation for the people there, 
and, yes, we are saying that there is an act of Congress. We look at 
the 1968 act, we look at our current views of the environment, we look 
at the needs of the people, and this is the question. This isn't a test 
on what was in the minds of

[[Page H6636]]

people 40 years ago who passed the bill. We are the Congress. We are 
now passing the bill.
  The gentleman's amendment excludes 9 miles, the City of Fall River, 
whom, again, he characterizes, as, well, the only thing that's wild 
there are the gangs, the only thing scenic is the graffiti. That is a 
very unfortunate thing to say about a city of hardworking people in 
which there are a number of very attractive and useful institutions and 
places.
  But the question is, do the people who live in that 9 miles--by the 
way, that's on both sides of the river, and there is a less-developed 
town across that my colleague Mr. McGovern represents--are they to be 
denied the chance to maximize the quality of their environment? Are 
they to be denied this planning tool, overwhelmingly supported by the 
city, so that as we tear down this elevated highway, as they expand the 
open space, as they take advantage of the river, they can do it in a 
rational way.
  The gentleman keeps saying, well, but what about 1968? What about 
1968? Maybe it was a good year for wine.
  But the notion that because a bill was passed in 1968, this Congress 
has lost the ability to make subsequent decisions, makes no sense.
  We are asking you, all of us who represent the affected area, all of 
the elected officials in the area, the overwhelming majority of people 
in the area, give us this tool so that we can enhance the recreational 
character, improve our environment, and don't say that because we once 
had this industrialization, we don't qualify for environmental 
concerns.
                                             Executive Department,


                                           City of Fall River,

                                    Fall River, MA, July 15, 2008.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Frank: I am writing to express my full 
     support of the bill you recently sponsored, which is 
     currently awaiting a vote by the House, to designate the 
     Taunton River as a Wild and Scenic River under the federal 
     Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. As the Mayor of the City of Fall 
     River, which is situated on Mount Hope Bay at the mouth of 
     the Taunton River, I recognize the river's value and am 
     pleased to join you and other legislators (Representative 
     James McGovern and Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy) in 
     support of legislation that will protect this integral 
     resource from further development.
       As a sign of Fall River's commitment the City Council of 
     Fall River passed a resolution on May 20, 2005, in support of 
     the recommendation for designation of the Taunton River as a 
     Wild and Scenic River. In addition, at that same time the 
     City Council endorsed the Taunton River Stewardship Plan 
     developed by the Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study 
     Committee.
       Thank you for recognizing the Taunton River's remarkable 
     value and for introducing legislation that will protect it 
     from development and industrial use. The City of Fall River 
     appreciates and fully supports your advocacy efforts in this 
     matter.
           Sincerely.
                                                   Robert Correia,
     Mayor.
                                  ____

                                          Conservation Commission,


                                             Town of Somerset,

                                                    July 11, 2005.
     Taunton River Wild & Scenic Designation Committee,
     Taunton, MA.
       Dear Committee Members: I am pleased to inform you that on 
     May 16, 2005 the annual town meeting for the Town of Somerset 
     was held, at which time article 28, to see if the Town would 
     endorse the Taunton River Stewardship Plan and seek a Wild 
     and Scenic River Designation of the Taunton River by the 
     United States Congress, was unanimously passed.
           Sincerely,
                                             Christina A. Wordell,
     Secretary.
                                  ____

                                         Office of the Town Clerk,


                                             Town of Freetown,

                                        Assonet, MA, July 6, 2005.
     Bill Napolitano,
     Taunton, MA.
       Dear Mr. Napolitano: This is to certify that the following 
     vote was taken at the Freetown Annual Town Meeting held on 
     June 6, 2005:
       ARTICLE 28: To see if the Town will vote to endorse the 
     Taunton River Stewardship Plan developed by the Taunton River 
     Wild and Scenic River Study Committee, together with its 
     recommendation to seek Wild and Scenic River designation 
     through act of the United States Congress. Submitted by the 
     Board of Selectmen. Requires Majority Vote. Finance Committee 
     recommends. Motion made and seconded to accept the article. 
     So voted unanimously.
           Sincerely,
                                              Jacqueline A. Brown,
     Town Clerk.
                                  ____

                                         Office of the Town Clerk,


                                        Town of Middleborough,

                                Middleborough, MA, August 8, 2005.
       To Whom It May Concern: I do hereby certify that the 
     following vote was taken at the July 11, 2005, adjourned 
     session of the June 6, 2005, Annual Town Meeting, at which a 
     quorum was declared by the Moderator:
       ARTICLE 30: Voted by a majority vote to endorse the Taunton 
     River Stewardship Plan developed by the Taunton River Wild 
     and Scenic River Committee, together with the recommendation 
     to seek Wild & Scenic River designation through an act of the 
     United States Congress.
           Very truly yours,
                                                     Eileen Gates,
     Town Clerk.
                                  ____

                                         Office of the Town Clerk,


                                          Town of Bridgewater,

                                       Taunton, MA, June 22, 2005.
     William Napolitano,
     Principal Environment Planner, Southeastern Regional Planning 
         & Economic Dev., Taunton, MA.
       Dear Mr. Napolitano: This is to certify that the following 
     article was unanimously voted at the Annual Town Meeting held 
     on Monday, May 2, 2005:
       ARTICLE 8. It was unanimously voted that the Town endorse 
     the Taunton River Stewardship Plan developed by the Taunton 
     River Wild and Scenic Study Committee, together with its 
     recommendation to seek Wild and Scenic River designation 
     through act of the United States Congress.
                                                     Ronald Adams,
     Town Clerk.
                                  ____



                                           Board of Selectmen,

                                     Somerset, MA, March 30, 2005.
     Taunton River Wild & Scenic River Study Committee,
     c/o Bill Napolitano, SRPEDD
     Taunton, MA.
       Dear Members: The Somerset Board of Selectmen would like to 
     commend and congratulate you on your efforts to designate the 
     Taunton River as a Wild and Scenic River under the Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers Act. Because the Taunton River is one of the 
     most intact ecosystems in all of New England, the 
     unfragmented habitat and natural estuary are regionally 
     significant. It is imperative to protect this outstanding 
     resource.
       The Taunton River has the second largest watershed in 
     Massachusetts. Funding generated from this designation would 
     benefit the entire region. Fragmentation of riparian 
     corridors, floodplains, and continuous upland habitat blocks 
     must be prevented, as well as the spread of invasive species 
     which could displace our native communities of plants and 
     animals. Funds could be used to ensure water quality, protect 
     cold water habitats and restore species and anadromous fish 
     populations.
       As a result of this study, we are addressing tidal 
     restrictions in Somerset along the Taunton River at Labor in 
     Vain Brook to improve the biodiversity of our unique marsh 
     system.
       The Somerset Board of Selectmen is pleased to endorse the 
     Taunton River Stewardship Plan.
           Sincerely,
     Patrick B. O'Neil,
       Chairman.
     Eleanor L. Gagnon.
     Steven Moniz.
                                  ____



                                          City Clerk's Office,

                                        Taunton, MA, May 27, 2005.
     Congressman Barney Frank,
     Jones Building,
     29 Broadway, Taunton, MA.
       Dear Congressman Frank: At a regular meeting of the 
     Municipal Council held on May 24, 2005, the Municipal Council 
     went on record endorsing the Taunton River Stewardship Plan 
     by the Taunton Wild & Scenic River Study Committee together 
     with its recommendation seeking wild & scenic river 
     designation through the enactment of the United State 
     Congress.
       Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
           Respectfully,
     Rose Marie Blackwell.
                                  ____



                                Selectmen and Board of Health,

                                       Raynham, MA, June 13, 2005.
     Re Taunton River Stewardship Plan
     Jim Ross,
     Chairman, Taunton River Wild & Scenic Committee, c/o SRPEDD, 
         Taunton, MA.
       Dear Mr. Ross: At the November 16, 2004 Town Meeting, 
     residents of Raynham voted unanimously to adopt the Taunton 
     River Stewardship Plan and recommend to Congress that the 
     Taunton River be included in Federal Wild & Scenic Riverway 
     Program.
       The Taunton River is and has always been vital to the Town 
     of Raynham in so many ways. From an historical, agricultural 
     and biological perspective, the Taunton River is of unequaled 
     value to Raynham. It has important biodiversity and 
     ecological value. It is a source of recreation of boaters, 
     birders, fishermen and others. And it has great scenic value.

[[Page H6637]]

       We are hopeful that Congress will designate the Taunton 
     River as Wild and Scenic.
           Very truly yours,
                                               Randall A. Buckner,
     Town Administrator.
                                  ____

       City of Fall River, In City Council.
       Be it resolved, that the City Council of Fall River hereby 
     supports the recommendation for designation of the Taunton 
     River as a Wild and Scenic River through act of the United 
     States Congress, with the southern boundary of this 
     designation defined as the south side of the Braga Bridge, 
     and
       Be it further resolved, that the City Council endorses the 
     Taunton River Stewardship Plan developed by the Taunton Wild 
     and Scenic River Study Committee.
       In City Council May 10, 2005
       Adopted. 9 yeas.
       Approved May 20, 2005, Edward M. Lambert, Jr., Mayor.
                                  ____

                                             Town Clerk, Treasurer


                                                and Collector,

                                                      Dighton, MA.
       I, Susana Medeiros, duly appointed Clerk of the Town of 
     Dighton, Massachusetts, hereby certify that the following is 
     a true copy of an extract from the minutes of the Annual Town 
     Meeting duly called and held on June 6, 2005:
       Article 18. Voted: On motion of James Digits that the Town 
     will endorse the Taunton River Stewardship Plan developed by 
     the Taunton River Wild and Scenic Study Committee, together 
     with its recommendation to seek Wild and Scenic River 
     designation through act of the United States Congress.
       Witness my hand and the seal of the Town of Dighton this 
     6th day of July 2005.
     Susana Medeiros.
                                  ____

                                                  Town of Berkley,


                              Office of Town Clerk, Treasurer,

                                        Berkley, MA, July 6, 2005.
     Bill Napolitano,
     SRPEDD,
     Taunton, MA.
       Dear Mr. Napolitano: As duly qualified Town Clerk of the 
     Town Of Berkley, I hereby certify the following action taken 
     June 6, 2005 at the annual Town Meeting.
       Article 32: Voted: That the Town endorse the Taunton River 
     Stewardship Plan developed by the Taunton River Wild and 
     Scenic Study Committee together with its recommendation to 
     seek Wild and Scenic River designation through act of the 
     United States Congress.
     A true copy of record.
     ATTEST:
     Carolyn Awalt,
       Town Clerk.
                                  ____

                                                  Town of Halifax,


                                     Office of the Town Clerk,

                                                      Halifax, MA.
       As Town Clerk for the Town of Halifax, I certify that the 
     following Article was voted upon at the duly notified Annual 
     Town Meeting held on May 9, 2005.
       Article 28: Voted to endorse the Taunton River Stewardship 
     Plan developed by the Taunton River Wild & Scenic Study 
     Committee together with its recommendations to seek Wild & 
     Scenic River designations through an act of the United States 
     Congress.
       Proposed by the Board of Selectmen (T. Garron).
       Passed Unanimously.
     ATTEST:
     Marcie K. Cole,
       Town Clerk.
                                  ____

                                                Town of Lakeville,


                                          Town Office Building

                                  Lakeville, MA, December 2, 2004.
     Taunton Wild & Scenic River Study Committee,
     c/o Bill Napolitano,
     SRPEDD, Taunton, MA.
       Dear Members: The Lakeville Board of Selectmen would like 
     to commend and congratulate you on your efforts to designate 
     the Taunton River as a Wild & Scenic River under the Wild & 
     Scenic River Act. Because the Taunton River is one of the 
     most intact ecosystems in all of New England, the 
     unfragmented habitat and natural estuary are regionally 
     significant. It is imperative to protect this outstanding 
     resource.
       The Taunton River has the second largest watershed in 
     Massachusetts. Funding generated from this designation would 
     benefit the entire region. Fragmentation of riparian 
     corridors, floodplains, and contiguous upland habitat blocks 
     must be prevented, as well as, the spread of invasive species 
     which could displace our native communities of plants and 
     animals. Funds could be used to ensure water quality, protect 
     cold water habitats and restore rare species and anadromous 
     fish populations.
       We were especially impressed with the Action Strategy. 
     Recognizing that public awareness is vital as we struggle to 
     protect our water resources, Lakeville held its first 
     Biodiversity Day event this year at Ted Williams Camp. We 
     hope to expand the event and continue to celebrate 
     biodiversity every year.
       The Lakeville Board of Selectmen is pleased to endorse the 
     Taunton River Stewardship Plan.
           Sincerely,
     Gerald R. White,
       Chairman.
     Chawner Hurd.
     Richard F. LaCamera.
                                  ____

                                                 Town of Somerset,


                                        Historical Commission,

                                     Somerset, MA, April 23, 2005.
     Sheila Weinberg,
     Virginia Jackson,
     Co-Chairwomen, Somerset, MA.
       Board of Selectmen: This letter is to inform the board of 
     selectmen of the Historical Commission's support of the 
     Taunton River Wild and Scenic River project.
       We would ask that the board of selectmen and Congress 
     endorse the Taunton River Stewardship Plan developed by the 
     Taunton River Wild and Scenic Study Committee, in their 
     efforts to secure a designation for the Taunton River as a 
     National Wild and Scenic River.
       We believe this designation would insure the preservation 
     of the Taunton River corridor as an intact river ecosystem 
     and regional resource.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter and your 
     support of this project.
       Respectfully submitted,

                                          Sherry L. Gallipeau,

                          Recording Secretary, Somerset Historical
     Commission.
                                  ____

                                                 Town of Somerset,


                                      Conservation Commission,

                                     Somerset, MA, March 25, 2005.
     Re Congressional Designation of the Taunton River of 
         Massachusetts as a ``Wild and Scenic River''
     Hon. Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: The town of Somerset Massachusetts 
     Conservation Commission hereby respectfully requests that the 
     Congress of the United States designate the Taunton River as 
     a ``Wild and Scenic River'' of the United States.
           Sincerely yours,

                                               Timothy Turner,

       Chairman, Somerset Conservation Commission.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the fact 
that the gentleman from Massachusetts, his views may have evolved. The 
law has not. We are a nation of laws, not what we wish it to be, but 
what the law is.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is a most extraordinary 
misunderstanding of the law. Yes, there was a law in 1968. Guess what 
this will be if we pass it--a new law. The notion that a law passed in 
1968 somehow defies this Congress of the ability to pass a subsequent 
law incorporating current judgment doesn't make any sense to me.
  You're not in court here arguing. The question is, does this Congress 
have the right to take into account evolved views to amend the law? 
Yes, there is a law on the books. If the law on the books, I would say 
to the gentleman, covered this, we wouldn't need this law, but this is 
a law that we would pass. So the notion that there was a prior law 
really makes less sense than a lot of other things I have heard today, 
which says a lot.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to close. Let me inquire 
of my colleague how many speakers he has.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I will be happy to close when you are ready.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate once again the 
discussion that we have had here today.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts, who is the chairman of a very 
important committee, does a great job, charming, witty, one of the 
funniest Members we have in Congress, actually said what my close was 
going to be. Someone once asked me, why do I care about this? I'm from 
Utah. I don't care about this river in Massachusetts.
  And you're right. I really don't. I didn't get involved in this issue 
by choice. The gentleman introduced a bill that had to come to my 
committee.
  But the reason that I do care is because exactly what the gentleman 
from Massachusetts said. We are attempting, in a vote, by a majority 
vote, to change the definition of law.
  When I was in college, I had a professor that told me that all those 
men that went to the Constitutional Convention had baggage that they 
took, which meant they had a common educational, classic educational 
system. They understood what they were talking about. They went back to 
the concepts of Aristotle, who loved to make

[[Page H6638]]

definitions of everything. He said government was of the one, the few, 
and the many, and it could be either good or bad depending upon the 
attitude of those who were empowered to govern.
  Government that was good is a government where the people, the 
leaders of that government, cared about the individuals and were self-
sacrificing. Government that was bad is where the people didn't care 
and they tried to make things for themselves.
  Then he gave definitions to that. So a government of one that was 
good was a monarchy, called a monarch back then, that's positive. 
Government of one that was bad was a tyranny. It is no coincidence that 
Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, of all 
the terms he could use to describe King George called him a tyrant, 
because it harkened back to their common understanding of classical 
literature and everything that Aristotle wrote.
  The government of the many that was good, he called a polity. The 
government of the many that was bad, bad intentions, bad mindset, he 
called a democracy.
  That's one of the reasons why we very seldom used the term 
``democracy'' for the first 150-plus years of this country. The idea 
was that the worst form of government is one in which by a majority 
vote you can either take property from someone else and redistribute it 
or you can change the definition of the law--by a majority vote.
  And that's why I object to this bill, because that is exactly what we 
are trying to do. The language of the original act is still clear and 
has not been changed. The language is clear, and that's why the Park 
Service did say that this proposal for the lower Taunton is without 
precedent, that it is problematic, that it does have its problems, 
because the law and the words of the law need to have a meaning. The 
law gives us guidelines. It gives us parameters. It protects the 
minority at the same time it directs the majority.
  It's just like if we ever come to a point of time where by a majority 
vote we can come in here and change the meaning of the law, we have 
moved to the time where we are back with Petrucchio and Bianca, where 
the sun is the moon and night is day and by a majority vote we can 
accomplish it, and that is why I am so opposed to this bill because it 
is exactly what the gentleman said and exactly what we are doing.
  By a majority vote, we are going to change the definition of wild and 
scenic rivers. By a majority vote. So I really don't care if you want 
to do this, if it's nice, if it enhances the attitude of any kind of 
urban area, it is not explicit with the letter of the law and with the 
spirit of the law, with the understanding of the law, which is why you 
are supposed to take a quarter mile of an embankment on either side of 
the designation and keep it free from development, for preservation 
purposes, not economic discovery and not economic development.
  I have great concerns, and I have expressed this many times, with the 
process that we have. At no time in the debate on this floor have we 
had more than perhaps a half dozen Members who have heard the debate 
and participated in it, perhaps a larger number are listening, but what 
will soon happen is we will call for the vote on this bill, and through 
those doors will come 300 Members who have not heard the debate and do 
not understand the issue of this bill. They will look up on the screen 
and say, it's an issue, it's a bill for Mr. Frank, and they will say, I 
like him. He may be of my party. I'll vote for him. He's an influential 
chairman. I'll support him. He is a very nice person. He is a very 
funny person. He is probably the best debater we have on the floor, and 
I'll vote for it.
  But that is not the reason, and that is not a rationale for changing 
law by vote instead of changing the words. Words have meaning.
  And if we ever deny that words have meaning, we no longer have the 
rule of law. All we have is what Aristotle warned and threatened and 
criticized that our attitude is going to be what drives us in the 
future, not what we should do, but what we want to do at the time.
  So, yes, it is important what the 1968 bill says. Yes, it is 
important. Yes, the upper Taunton River has all the qualities for which 
the gentleman wants. And, yes, the lower Taunton River does not. I 
don't care whether you are talking about LNG ports or not, it doesn't 
meet the qualifications of a wild and scenic river.
  Until we change the law, we should not, by a simple majority vote on 
this bill, try and change the definitions of those words. That is why 
I, from Utah, care about this river.
  Because if we can change the meaning of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act by this vote, there is no river in America that is not in danger of 
being made wild and scenic if you have enough votes to do it. There is 
no law that can stand if you have enough votes to do it, which is why 
this is supposed to be a republic, why the words have meaning and the 
words of the law are significant and important.
  That's why I beseech the handful of Members of this floor who 
actually are listening to this debate to please understand the 
rudiments of this debate and the significant issue that we are doing 
right here. That's why we are making this significant. That's why we 
are putting this. That's why I am opposed to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the wonderful personal 
attributes of Mr. Frank, this bill, in and of itself, has tremendous 
merit, and that is why we brought it here for support by our 
colleagues. I should remind all our colleagues that this particular 
scenic river, the Taunton, was studied under the 1968 law, met the 
criteria for designation and, consequently, that is what the study 
recommended after 7 years of study.
  Another point I think is important, as I pointed it out in the 
opening statement, the lower portion of the Taunton River from Muddy 
Cove to the Route 195 bridge in Fall River is being designated a 
recreational river, rather than a wild and scenic designation.
  This designation is reserved for river stretches that are accessible 
by road or railroad, may have development, may have undergone some 
impoundment or diversion, but that offer outstanding opportunity for 
recreation.

                              {time}  1800

  The lower Taunton fits that description perfectly. The National Park 
Service, as I mentioned, spent 7 years studying this river, working 
with local communities. And I mention that because if we are going to 
value opinions, as my colleague from Utah was speaking, then I think a 
very democratic response needs to be a supportive response as well to 
the near unanimity of support for this designation by local 
communities, the elected officials, and the delegation from the State. 
I think that merits a value, and that value should be to extend support 
and credibility to their desires to have this designation occur.
  I would also caution, on that note, caution my colleagues against 
substituting our own judgment when we do not represent the area, have 
not participated in or reviewed the study. This is an 80-page study 
that found this designation appropriate and recommended that 
designation.
  Further, we were talking about precedent. There are several examples 
of other rivers, the Lower Delaware in New Jersey, the Allegheny in 
Pennsylvania, the Sudbury, Assabet and Concord Rivers in Massachusetts, 
which have similar levels of nearby development and represent very 
successful designations under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. At least, 
I might mention, at least two of these rivers I just mentioned, by the 
way, passed the House under Republican rule on suspension.
  H.R. 415 is an important piece of legislation. It incorporates the 
designation, it incorporates the use by urban communities of the 
designation. It is fitting and it has been verified through study and 
through the cooperative work of all the communities and the delegation. 
I ask for its support and urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the chairman of the Committee on 
Natural Resources, which reported the pending legislation sponsored by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman Barney Frank, in support of 
this measure.
  The 106th Congress authorized a study of the river to determine 
whether it is eligible for such designation. The National Park Service 
released a report in June of last year, finding that the river is 
eligible and identifying designation of the entire 40-mile segment as 
the environmentally preferred alternative.

[[Page H6639]]

  H.R. 415 implements the study's findings by amending the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act to add the Taunton River.
  Some apparently feel that, in their opinion, the lower portion of the 
Taunton River is not deserving of designation. I would first point out 
that the bill designates this portion of the river as a recreational 
river--not as a wild or scenic river. This is a designation intended 
for river segments just like the lower Taunton.
  More important, the experts at the National Park Service, the entire 
Massachusetts congressional delegation, and the 10 local communities 
along the banks, all think the river does qualify for designation and, 
with all due respect, their opinions are more informed. Opponents of 
this river designation have attempted to Iink this legislation to the 
apparent demise of a liquefied natural gas facility that had once been 
proposed along the banks of the Taunton.
  Approval for the LNG facility was denied--twice--by the United States 
Coast Guard for reasons having nothing to do with the wild and scenic 
designation. In fact, the designation was proposed long before the LNG 
facility was announced.
  This is a good piece of legislation, the river is worthy of 
designation, and I urge the adoption of this measure.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
  Many of my Republican friends seem to think that they know better 
than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its elected representatives 
when it comes to meeting our state's energy needs. They claim to know 
not only how much LNG we need in our region, but also where these LNG 
terminals should be located.
  I have some news for my Republican friends: you have been sold a bill 
of goods by the developer of the failed Weaver's Cove project, a 
project that was rejected by the Coast Guard which will never be built. 
Before you shed another crocodile tear about our need for LNG, I would 
like to share with you some facts about LNG in Massachusetts.
  The fact is that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has more LNG 
terminals in operation or approved by both Federal and State regulators 
than any other State in the Union! We already have two LNG importation 
terminals in operation, and we also have a third terminal that will 
become operational by next year.
  Now that is a larger number of LNG terminals than is currently in 
place in any other State of the Union. In fact--when all three 
terminals are in place, we will have more LNG terminals in 
Massachusetts than Texas and Louisiana have today.
  So, my Republican friends should stop shedding those crocodile tears 
about the need for more LNG in Massachusetts. Our State has already 
seen that need, and we have already responded to it.
  Since 1971, there has been an LNG terminal in my district in Everett, 
Massachusetts. That terminal has been in operation longer than any 
other LNG importation terminal in the country. In fact, between 1971 
and 2003, the Everett terminal has received about half of all of the 
LNG imported into the United States. The Everett terminal has two LNG 
storage tanks that have a combined storage capacity of 3.4 billion 
cubic feet, and the terminal can vaporize this LNG into natural gas at 
a rate of approximately 1 billion cubic feet each day. Now, this is a 
facility that is located right in the middle of a densely populated 
urban area, and never could be built there today due to safety and 
security concerns.
  But we need the gas that this facility produces, so we are forced to 
continue operating it. The Everett LNG terminal, currently operated by 
the Suez company, today meets 20 percent of New England's annual 
natural gas demand. The local natural gas distribution companies served 
by this terminal store the LNG that they receive from the Everett 
terminal in satellite terminals all around New England. That allows 
this LNG to meet an additional 15 percent of New England's peak natural 
gas demand. So, nearly 40 percent of New England's peak demand for 
natural gas is served by the existing Everett facility.
  Now, in addition to the Everett LNG terminal, the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts has also approved two additional offshore LNG terminals 
to meet our future demand. We learned from the lesson of Everett with 
these facilities, and wisely chose to locate them offshore, away from 
any populated areas where they could be an attractive target to 
terrorists.

  The first offshore LNG terminal is called the Northeast Gateway. It 
is owned by a company called Excelerate, and it is located about 13 
miles off the coast north of Boston in Massachusetts Bay. This offshore 
facility re-gasifies the LNG on the tanker ship, turning it back into 
natural gas, and then sends that gas into the existing HUB line, which 
is a natural gas pipeline off our coast. The Excelerate LNG facility 
received 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas in March, but has received 
no additional LNG deliveries since then because of low demand. 
According to Excelerate, this offshore terminal is capable of 
accommodating up to 800 million cubic feet of natural gas each day 
future growth, though they initially are projecting that it would 
operate at a rate of 500 million cubic feet per day and a peak 
capability to 600 million cubic feet per day.
  In addition to this first offshore LNG terminal, there is also a 
second LNG terminal, which is being built by Suez, the owner of the 
Everett LNG terminal. Neptune, a liquefied natural gas, LNG, offshore 
deepwater port, is also being built approximately 10 miles off the 
coast of Gloucester. Neptune has received all Federal, State and local 
permits and approvals to proceed with construction. Pipeline 
construction and testing are planned for mid-July through September 
2008. Work on the pipeline connection to HubLine and the buoy 
installation are scheduled to begin in May and end in September 2009. 
Neptune will be prepared to receive LNG shipments by late 2009.
  When completed, the Neptune LNG project will be capable of delivering 
approximately 400 million cubic feet per day of natural gas to the 
region, or enough to heat 1.5 million homes, and 750 million cubic feet 
per day a peak winter day.
  So, the bottom line is that with these two new facilities, we will be 
going from an LNG capacity of 750 million metric cubic feet per day of 
natural gas, and 1 billion cubic feet per day in peak periods, up to 
1.65 billion cubic feet per day routine delivery capacity, and 2.45 
billion peak delivery capacity.
  The proposed LNG terminal at Weaver's Cove has been rejected by the 
Coast Guard. It is opposed by virtually every elected official in 
Massachusetts. It would be located right in the middle of an urban 
area, just like Everett. It makes no sense from a security standpoint 
in a post-9/11 world. The Coast Guard has already said no to Weaver's 
Cove. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has already said no. The 
developer doesn't like that, but his proposal has been rejected. It is 
going nowhere. It's not going to happen.
  It also makes little economic sense to build this facility, at this 
location, at this time. There is not sufficient economic justification 
for this facility in light of the three existing or planned LNG 
terminals in our State. These three existing LNG facilities can meet 
our State's needs for natural gas for many, many years, and if we need 
to build another LNG terminal in the future, our State has already 
demonstrated that we are willing to move quickly to approve the siting 
of offshore LNG terminals that allow LNG to be imported into our State 
without any of the safety or terrorism risks associated with the siting 
of another urban LNG terminal.
  So, don't pretend that this bill to designate the Taunton River as a 
wild and scenic river has anything to do with LNG. The Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts does not need this facility. Federal regulators have 
already rejected it. We already have two LNG terminals in our State, 
with a third on the way, and if we need more LNG in the future we can 
build more offshore terminals. We've demonstrated a willingness and 
ability to do so.
  I urge the adoption of the bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has now expired. Pursuant 
to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                                H.R. 415

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF TAUNTON RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.

       Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(__) Taunton River, Massachusetts.--The main stem of the 
     Taunton River from its headwaters at the confluence of the 
     Town and Matfield Rivers in the Town of Bridgewater 
     downstream 40 miles to the confluence with the Quequechan 
     River at the Route 195 Bridge in the City of Fall River, to 
     be administered by the Secretary of the Interior in 
     cooperation with the Taunton River Stewardship Council as 
     follows:
       ``(A) The 18-mile segment from the confluence of the Town 
     and Matfield Rivers to Route 24 in the Town of Raynham, as a 
     scenic river.
       ``(B) The 5-mile segment from Route 24 to 0.5 miles below 
     Weir Bridge in the City of Taunton, as a recreational river.
       ``(C) The 8-mile segment from 0.5 miles below Weir Bridge 
     to Muddy Cove in the Town of Dighton, as a scenic river.
       ``(D) The 9-mile segment from Muddy Cove to the confluence 
     with the Quequechan River at the Route 195 Bridge in the City 
     of Fall River, as a recreational river.''.

     SEC. 2. MANAGEMENT OF TAUNTON RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.

       (a) Taunton River Stewardship Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Each river segment added to section 3(a) 
     of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

[[Page H6640]]

     by section 1 of this Act shall be managed in accordance with 
     the Taunton River Stewardship Plan, dated July 2005 
     (including any amendment to the Taunton River Stewardship 
     Plan that the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Secretary'') determines to be consistent 
     with this Act).
       (2) Effect.--The Taunton River Stewardship Plan described 
     in paragraph (1) shall be considered to satisfy each 
     requirement relating to the comprehensive management plan 
     required under section 3(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1274(d)).
       (b) Cooperative Agreements.--To provide for the long-term 
     protection, preservation, and enhancement of each river 
     segment added to section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
     Act by section 1 of this Act, pursuant to sections 10(e) and 
     11(b)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1281(e) 
     and 1282(b)(1)), the Secretary may enter into cooperative 
     agreements (which may include provisions for financial and 
     other assistance) with--
       (1) the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (including political 
     subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts);
       (2) the Taunton River Stewardship Council; and
       (3) any appropriate nonprofit organization, as determined 
     by the Secretary.
       (c) Relation to National Park System.--Notwithstanding 
     section 10(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1281(c)), each river segment added to section 3(a) of the 
     Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by section 1 of this Act shall not 
     be--
       (1) administered as a unit of the National Park System; or
       (2) subject to the laws (including regulations) that govern 
     the administration of the National Park System.
       (d) Land Management.--
       (1) Zoning ordinances.--The zoning ordinances adopted by 
     the Towns of Bridgewater, Halifax, Middleborough, Raynham, 
     Berkley, Dighton, Freetown, and Somerset, and the Cities of 
     Taunton and Fall River, Massachusetts (including any 
     provision of the zoning ordinances relating to the 
     conservation of floodplains, wetlands, and watercourses 
     associated with any river segment added to section 3(a) of 
     the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by section 1 of this Act), 
     shall be considered to satisfy each standard and requirement 
     described in section 6(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1277(c)).
       (2) Villages.--For the purpose of section 6(c) of the Wild 
     and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1277(c)), each town 
     described in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be a 
     village.
       (3) Acquisition of land.--
       (A) Limitation of authority of secretary.--With respect to 
     each river segment added to section 3(a) of the Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers Act by section 1 of this Act, the Secretary may 
     only acquire parcels of land--
       (i) by donation; or
       (ii) with the consent of the owner of the parcel of land.
       (B) Prohibition relating to acquisition of land by 
     condemnation.--In accordance with section 6(c) of the Wild 
     and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1277(c)), with respect to 
     each river segment added to section 3(a) of the Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers Act by section 1 of this Act, the Secretary may 
     not acquire any parcel of land by condemnation.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 110-758. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 110-758.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order 
under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
       Page 2, line 24, insert a close quotation mark and period 
     after ``river.''.
       Page 3, strike lines 1 through 4.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1339, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Once again, I appreciate the discussion we have 
had on this bill. I think that is perfunctory. We have to say that. But 
let's once again make common the facts of this particular bill.
  The Department, the National Park Service, has not supported this 
bill. They have asked that we refrain from it until the study is final. 
They have also, though, in that study, given options, three different 
options of what to do with this river. This bill happens to take the 
worst of the options, an option that has no precedent, an option that 
is problematic.
  My amendment makes this a legitimate bill. The area to which I 
object, the area that does not meet the standards of a wild and scenic 
river, those areas I am asking to be removed. The Upper Taunton River, 
that is the area this Congress, in the Year 2000, mandated the study 
and paid for a study, and that what the study should have done, has 
those wild and scenic qualifications that match the law.
  That is my amendment, to remove the offending sections of this bill 
and limit just to those which meet the meaning of the words in the law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah has the right to close.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  These are the portions of the river bank that would be excluded by 
the gentleman's amendment. These would not be protected. The historic 
park enshrining the battleship Massachusetts would not be protected.
  The gentleman made an argument I found hard to follow. It was because 
the 1968 Act said one thing, it would be a violation of the rule of law 
to pass a law. I have never heard that. We are here in the House of 
Representatives debating a law. If it gets a majority and is passed by 
the Senate, never to be taken for granted, it will become an addition 
to the law. The notion that a law being passed somehow distorts the law 
is a grave error.
  The gentleman talked about the will of the people. The overwhelming 
will of the people in this area is to have this designation. No, it is 
not wild and scenic in the dictionary definition. It is recreational, 
which is one of the provisions that the law calls for.
  And the question is today, 40 years after the original passage of the 
law, do we, as a Democratically elected House--the gentleman will 
forgive me for using the word ``democratic'' affirmatively. Unlike 
Aristotle, I don't think ``democracy'' is a bad word. Do we have the 
right to say to urban dwellers, the people in the city of Fall River 
who are targeted by the gentleman's amendment, the people in the city 
of Fall River, an industrial area. They are the ones that are being 
told the environment is not for you. Environmental enhancement, the 
ability to use this law to get the planning right, you don't get that. 
You are not entitled to it because you have been an industrial area.
  I don't think the House wants to deny the right to environmental 
improvement and enhancement to working people who live in an urban 
area.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me continue to reserve until we are done.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. While the gentleman from Utah is thinking 
of something to say, I will yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva) such time as he may consume.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me state my opposition to the amendment offered by 
my colleague from Utah.
  As I stated before, the portion of the Taunton River which will be 
struck out by this amendment is deserving of this designation and has 
nothing to do with the decisions that have already stopped the Weaver's 
Cove LNG facility. As we pointed out, the lower portion of the Taunton 
River is being designated as a recreational river, rather than a wild 
or scenic designation.
  The designation is actually intended for river stretches that look 
like the Lower Taunton because they are accessible and may have some 
development and undergone some impoundment or diversion.
  The designation is similar, as I mentioned before, to other urbanized 
river segments in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Massachusetts.
  There has been 7 years of study. The National Park Service thinks 
this segment qualifies for this designation. The towns along the river 
think it qualifies, and the Members of Congress from the State think it 
qualifies.

[[Page H6641]]

  And I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and preserve 
the integrity of the legislation that is before us.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am prepared to close whenever the gentleman 
from Massachusetts is.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will close.
  I appreciated the kind words the gentleman from Utah had to say about 
me. I only wish he would extend those courtesies to my constituents who 
have, I think, been unfairly denigrated.
  And I again want to stress there was nothing inappropriate about 40 
years later the Congress deciding, by a vote, this is no fiat here, to 
look at the law and say, we now believe that this is an appropriate 
designation. It is to say to an area that has been subjected to de-
industrialization, you get the support of this planning mechanism, 
which is necessary because it is on a navigable waterway, so it can't 
be entirely done by State authorities. It is supported by all of the 
locally elected officials, overwhelmingly by the people there, by all 
of the Members of Congress nearby, by the four United States Senators 
who would be affected. You get this ability to enhance the quality of 
your life and, at the same time, to find, as my colleague from Rhode 
Island said, a new economic pattern. And that is engaging in self-help. 
We are trying to help them tear down an elevated highway that is a 
barrier to this river. There is a coordinated set of planning 
activities to improve it.
  And I have to say, the gentleman, I think, has helped me prove the 
point. In his diligent search to defeat this bill, he came up with 
three people in the area who were against it. Well, I don't think three 
people in an area of hundreds of thousands gives you, even under 
Aristotle's definition, the right to impugn the legitimacy of this, 
particularly since we are following the regular order.
  I would say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, please don't tell the 
people, the hardworking people of an industrial area who are trying to 
improve the quality of their lives for themselves and the lives of 
their children, don't tell them that this environmental designation 
stops where they live, and that they are to be, by a specific vote of 
the Congress of the United States, excluded from this set of benefits.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate that. And to be honest, I 
anticipated going first in the closing of this, so the gentleman from 
Massachusetts could have had the last word. So I will try and be kind 
with that.
  But to be very honest with you, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't matter how 
many property owners may or may not object to it. Under our 
constitutional system of laws, if there are three people with property 
rights, they must be respected. It doesn't matter how many dislike it. 
They must be respected.
  The gentleman has very nice people in his district. I am positive. 
Look who they elected. But that is not the issue. The issue is the 
language of the law. The language in section 16 talks about free-
flowing rivers, natural waterways, existing and flowing in a natural 
condition. There should not be low dams, diversion works or other minor 
structures at the time the river is proposed.
  This ain't minor structures. This is a large urban development. It 
does not meet the definition of those terms. We say it over and over 
again.
  It is not the House that is denying the constituents the right to 
have this designation. The State of Massachusetts could do the same 
thing if you just used local ordinances and State authority. It is not 
the House that will be denying them. It is the law that denies them. It 
is the law that does not allow this lower river to meet definition of 
wild and scenic rivers. Period.
  Pass the amendment, and I can easily and happily support the bill 
because if you pass the amendment, the parts that do qualify as wild 
and scenic rivers will be included as wild and scenic rivers, and the 
parts that do not qualify will be exempt.
  I yield back.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Shuler

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 110-758.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Shuler:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 3. HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, AND RECREATIONAL 
                   SHOOTING.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the 
     authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the 
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts to manage, control, or regulate 
     fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations, 
     including the regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping, and 
     recreational shooting. Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
     as limiting access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or 
     recreational shooting.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1339, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
introducing this bill to protect the Taunton River. I have the 
privilege of representing the mountains of western North Carolina, and 
I have seen the positive impact that sensible resource management has 
on a community.

                              {time}  1815

  I share the gentleman's commitment to protect America's wild and 
scenic rivers. However, I feel that additional clarification is needed 
to ensure that sportsmen will continue to enjoy the river and its 
surroundings. My amendment makes it clear that H.R. 415 does nothing to 
eliminate the access of the Taunton River for the purposes of hunting, 
fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting. These activities are an 
important element of the outdoor lifestyles enjoyed by thousands of 
families in this area.
  The management and regulations of these activities traditionally have 
been the responsibilities of the States. This amendment makes it clear 
that this practice will not be interrupted by the Federal designation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment and the 
underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, though 
to be honest, I'm not in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The words of this amendment are hauntingly 
familiar. As Yogi Berra would say, ``It's deja vu all over again,'' but 
I don't like to use cliches that are that old. However, this amendment 
is a wonderful, positive, good amendment. It's been mine up until the 
last couple of bills.
  I like this amendment. I am proud that the gentleman from North 
Carolina has seen conversion to this point of view. To be honest, in 
our committee, on H.R. 1528, this same amendment, you voted against. 
I'm happy for your conversion. I welcome you over to the side of truth, 
right, and justice and where words have meaning.
  For that reason, we are more than happy to accept this amendment. We 
will be supportive of this amendment. It's the right thing to do. It's 
the positive thing to do. It's brilliant verbiage because, to be 
honest, we wrote it a long time ago.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, once again, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

[[Page H6642]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina will be 
postponed.


             Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 110-758.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Pearce's designee, I offer 
amendment No. 3 made in order under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 3. ENERGY AND CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.

       The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Energy and private industry, shall complete and 
     submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate, and Senators and Representatives 
     from the States affected by the designation, a report using 
     the best available data and regarding the energy resources 
     available on the lands and waters included in the segments of 
     the Taunton River designated under section 2 of this Act. The 
     report shall--
       (1) contain the best available description of the energy 
     resources available on the land and report on the specific 
     amount of energy withdrawn from possible development; and
       (2) identify cubic feet of natural gas, natural gas 
     transmission and storage potential, megawatts of geothermal, 
     wind and solar energy that could be commercially produced, 
     annual available biomass for energy production, and any 
     megawatts of hydropower resources available, including tidal, 
     traditional dams, and in-stream flow turbines.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1339, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you, sir. If I had known we were having a 
vote on the last one, I might not have fished for the first one.
  It's a wonderful opportunity for me to introduce this particular 
amendment from the gentleman of New Mexico who spends so much time in 
this area and understands it so well. We're facing, obviously, an 
energy crisis in the United States, and we do have a dearth of 
solutions that have been forthcoming in this particular body. And we 
have repeatedly passed legislation that actually has, over the last 30 
years, restricted access, limited our resources.
  This amendment is once again simple. It calls upon the Secretary of 
Interior to provide us the full accounting of the resources this bill 
may take away from the American people. Simply, the Secretary of the 
Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and private 
industry, if it remains, shall complete and submit a report accounting 
for the energy resources withdrawn from future development by 
designation of this land and waters included in the Taunton River bill. 
Specifically, the report shall identify, among other sources, the 
amount of geothermal, wind, solar, biomass energy and any impact on 
electrical transmission.
  The amendment is simple. If Congress is acting to take energy 
resources away from the people, we should know if there is a true 
impact by these actions.
  I would urge your support of Mr. Pearce's well-thought-out and 
significant amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. The amendment offered by Mr. Bishop for Mr. Pearce is 
unnecessary because the designation of the Taunton River is not going 
to have any impact whatsoever on energy resources in the country. As a 
result, this amendment requires a report that will likely be only a 
sentence or two long.
  The energy debate is ongoing in this country and here in Congress, 
and I can assure you that no matter where you come down on the issues 
raised by the debate, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not even make 
the top 100 list of the reasons we're paying so much for gas at the 
pump. Reports on the impact of the Bush-Cheney energy policies or the 
energy policies enacted by the former Republican majority would provide 
significantly more insight into the problems we now face than a report 
on one wild and scenic river designation.
  To go even further, we will debate, and I hope adopt, an amendment 
sponsored by Representative Boyda making it absolutely clear that H.R. 
415 will have no impact on the supply of domestically produced energy. 
However, Mr. Chairman, as with most amendments that are completely 
unnecessary, this amendment does no harm to this legislation, so we 
will not oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest a wise choice of 
action, and I will yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Boyda of Kansas

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 110-758.
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mrs. Boyda of Kansas:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 3. DOMESTICALLY-PRODUCED ENERGY RESOURCES.

       Nothing in this Act shall impact the supply of 
     domestically-produced energy resources.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1339, the gentlewoman from 
Kansas (Mrs. Boyda) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Kansas.
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to H.R. 415, and I offer it to clear up any misconceptions 
there may be about the impact of this bill.
  As the amendment states, ``nothing in this act shall impact the 
supply of domestically produced energy resources.'' Those on the other 
side of the aisle have held up designating the Taunton River as a 
national scenic and recreational river because of supposed energy 
concerns.
  I support domestic drilling, and I believe domestic oil production is 
important to our energy supply. This amendment makes it clear that we 
are not going to stop energy development in this bill, and we're not 
going to impede exploration of domestic resources. We're simply taking 
steps to protect the Taunton River.
  We must drop the rhetoric and have a national debate about our real 
energy priorities by finding real solutions for the rising price of oil 
and gas. From the cost of fuel to increased fertilizers that are 
killing our farmers back in Kansas, everyone is hurting. We all know 
that our country needs a comprehensive energy plan to address our 
future.
  The plan that was developed by Big Oil in the White House 8 years ago 
has brought us nothing but higher fuel prices, and we've sent trillions 
of our dollars to unfriendly governments overseas.
  If you have heard me talk about the energy policy, then you have 
heard me talk about the three-legged stool. First and foremost, it's 
conservation. It's the cheapest, most fastest, and easiest piece of 
this puzzle. Second is an absolute determination by this country to 
finally break our addiction to oil through new technologies like plug-
in hybrid vehicles that rely on wind or solar or nuclear or alternative 
sources.
  Energy prices are driven by supply and demand, and we have to 
increase the supply of not only oil, but certainly of alternative 
fuels.
  Third, even with these alternatives and with conservation, we must 
continue to have oil and gas to play a significant role in our energy 
policy. But we can use the lands, and we must use the lands that are 
currently open to drilling, like the National Petroleum Reserve in 
Alaska, and we need to invest in technologies that make it easier and 
more environmentally friendly to access.
  My home State of Kansas holds wind, solar, biofuels, and yes, even 
nuclear

[[Page H6643]]

potential. If we take the simple step of just making a plug-in hybrid 
vehicle common and affordable, we can turn off the oil spigot and turn 
on the energy grid that's powered by alternatives to oil.
  Today I think we've said it over and over and over again, Mr. 
Chairman. There are 68 million acres that are currently leased and are 
not being drilled. Today the leases are in place, the environmental 
hurdles have been cleared, but there's not drilling going on. And the 
American people, certainly the people of Kansas, they want to know why 
and so do I.
  So let's talk about Big Oil's dirty little secret. They don't have 
the equipment necessary to drill. Eighty percent of the oil that's 
available on the Outer Continental Shelf is already available for 
offshore leasing and for drilling. But here is their little secret. 
There won't be any new rigs available for 1 to 2 years. According to 
the American Petroleum Institute, the API, that in time of increasing 
demand when they should have been keeping up with supply, they've been 
making an enormously high profit. The oil companies haven't even been 
growing their own stock of drilling equipment even for the lands they 
currently hold leases on. Mr. Chairman, I find it, and I think the good 
people of Kansas, as well as America, finds it just simply 
unbelievable.
  My mom always taught me to clean up my plate before I asked for more. 
But the oil companies aren't following my mom's advice. They've been 
collecting lease after lease after lease, but they're not drilling on 
these lands. And it's time they get started.
  The high price of oil, it's very clear that it certainly helps the 
big oil industry. And I don't debate that it's a very good decision to 
them to limit supply. But it's killing American families. It is hurting 
our farmers, and it is hurting our businesses.
  Congress can't force these oil companies to go out and drill, but we 
can pass legislation that stops the hoarding of these leases on Federal 
lands. And we voted to do that here just 3 weeks ago. But like other 
important energy bills, it's gone right down partisan lines, and it's 
been opposed by the President.
  As important as it is that we get this right, Mr. Chairman, let me go 
back and say, again, the people of Kansas are too smart to buy all of 
this. They know that ultimately, though we need that oil to bridge to 
the new alternative future that we're talking about in energy, we 
cannot drill our way out of this mess.
  America uses 24 percent of the world's oil, yet we only have 2 
percent of the world's reserves.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, 
kind of.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I think the other side of the aisle will be happy 
to know that this amendment does nothing to prevent a proposed LNG port 
in the Taunton River. The legislation does, but the amendment does not. 
I'm not really sure exactly what the amendment does. About the most you 
can say is it doesn't appear to do anything negative, and for that 
purpose I will be happy to support this amendment, because at least it 
recognizes that energy is important, and that's an excellent first 
step. A curious one, I admit, but an excellent first step, especially 
if it's accepted by those who are supporting the underlying legislation 
without the first Bishop amendment to be added to it.
  It is curious also to understand what domestically produced energy 
source will come in this particular area unless maybe you actually do 
have the Park Service use their eminent domain power and actually 
condemn all of the land a quarter mile from either side of the river in 
the way a real wild and scenic river should be done. But let's see what 
happens.
  An LNG port, if it was actually produced there, would be able within 
3 years, according to best estimates, to reduce the amount of energy 
needs for the people that live in this area by 10 percent or more, just 
from this one port. But the issue at hand is not domestically produced 
energy because an LNG port does not bring in domestically produced 
energy. It's all coming from abroad.

                              {time}  1830

  The countries that produce LNG are Australia, Trinidad, Malaysia, 
Algeria, Nigeria, Oman, Brunei, Qatar, with other developments in 
Norway, Venezuela, Egypt, Bolivia, Peru, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, and 
Russia.
  It is true that some is produced in Alaska, which I don't know if the 
gentlelady actually accepts that as part of the United States, but that 
doesn't go all the way around to the east coast. That stays up here in 
the West.
  That's the issue. So I accept this amendment, but we're actually 
talking not about domestic production. The LNG port was about foreign 
production coming in to the country, but because it at least addresses 
the issue that energy is important, I'm happy to accept it.
  I yield back.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Kansas will be 
postponed.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-758 on which 
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Bishop of Utah.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Shuler of North Carolina.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mrs. Boyda of Kansas.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 235, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 503]

                               AYES--189

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton

[[Page H6644]]


     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--235

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Blunt
     Boswell
     Cubin
     Fortuno
     Gilchrest
     Green, Al
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lucas
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Shimkus
     Smith (TX)
     Solis
     Weiner

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. CLEAVER, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. 
GILLIBRAND, Mr. CHANDLER, Ms. HIRONO, and Messrs. GUTIERREZ and WELCH 
of Vermont changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LaHOOD and Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Shuler

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Shuler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 425, 
noes 0, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 504]

                               AYES--425

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barton (TX)
     Blunt
     Boswell
     Cubin
     Fortuno
     Gilchrest

[[Page H6645]]


     Green, Al
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lucas
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Shimkus
     Solis


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1908

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Boyda of Kansas

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. 
Boyda) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421, 
noes 0, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 505]

                               AYES--421

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barton (TX)
     Blunt
     Boswell
     Cubin
     Fortuno
     Gilchrest
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lucas
     McDermott
     Miller, Gary
     Peterson (PA)
     Rush
     Scott (GA)
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Stearns


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes remaining in 
the vote.

                              {time}  1915

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 505, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Capuano) having assumed the chair, Mr. McNulty, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 415) to 
amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the 
Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of 
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1339, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


         Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Wittman of Virginia

  Mr. WITTMAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. WITTMAN of Virginia. I am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Wittman of Virginia, moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     415 to the Committee on Natural Resources with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House promptly in the form to 
     which perfected at the time of this motion, with the 
     following amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 3. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Nothing in this Act or the stewardship plan referred to in 
     section 2 shall be used as a basis to restrict current and 
     future--
       (1) development and management of energy infrastructure;

[[Page H6646]]

       (2) easements and environmental mitigation related to 
     paragraph (1); or
       (3) business and economic activities or expansion of such 
     activities.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WITTMAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Americans are facing an energy 
crisis. High fuel costs are cutting short summer vacations, impacting 
family budgets, shuttering small businesses, increasing food costs and 
threatening the economic well-being of this country.
  Recently, I learned of a small business in the rural part of my 
district that can't even receive shipments because the delivery trucks 
can no longer afford to drive all the way down to his shop.
  This small shop owner, who operates on already tight margins, has to 
incur extra costs to meet the delivery truck closer into town. And this 
is just one of countless similar stories throughout America and 
throughout Virginia's First District.
  The majority's response to this crisis has been to repeatedly deny 
the American people relief from skyrocketing fuel prices. Defying basic 
economics, they refuse to increase supply and encourage production of 
American-made energy.
  The majority party decries the timeline of domestic drilling as too 
long, saying the American people won't see any relief for at least 5 to 
10 years, as if it is somehow a bad thing for Congress to act with 
foresight in order to avert a deeper energy catastrophe in the near 
future.
  In the face of ``all of the above'' energy policy offered by 
Republicans, one that includes American-made energy, encourages 
aggressive conservation and invests in and incentivizes clean, 
renewable energy, Democrats offer misdirected solutions like ``use it 
or lose it'' and recycle failed ideas of the past, like the windfall 
profits tax.
  Today's consideration of H.R. 415 is another such mistake. Instead of 
restricting energy development in the name of political partisanship, 
we need to throw every option on the table. And I'm reminded of a story 
that a constituent told me about the Apollo 13 astronauts and how they 
solved problems where Mission Control took everything they had at their 
avail, every tool, every piece of equipment at their disposal, to 
survive and get those astronauts back to Earth. Today, Mr. Speaker, 
Congress is Mission Control, and we have an energy problem.
  This bill abuses the definition of Wild and Scenic Rivers by 
designating the urban and heavily developed lower section of the 
Taunton River as wild and scenic. Not coincidentally it's on this lower 
section of the Taunton River that a liquefied natural gas facility has 
been proposed. And thus this bill is yet another roadblock to 
increasing our energy supply. Not only could this legislation encourage 
budget-busting heating bills, but it will also bury local shipbuilders 
in an avalanche of bureaucratic red tape. Shipbuilding facilities often 
need to be modified to meet job specifications. By further complicating 
the permitting process, this bill stymies these business' ability to 
meet their customers' needs.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the headline in the Fall River Herald News 
also reads about the impact on businesses where it says, ``scenic river 
designation could sink waterfront businesses,'' again, another negative 
impact on businesses.
  Congress cannot afford to remain tone deaf to the suffering of our 
country. This motion to recommit returns our focus on what is truly 
important to the American people: Relief of skyrocketing energy prices. 
It prohibits restrictions on the development or management of energy 
infrastructure. And more importantly, it expands on the language 
offered by Representative Boyda to include sources of energy like 
clean-burning natural gas, which will play a critical role in our 
development of an ``all of the above'' energy policy.
  I urge all Members to support this motion to recommit H.R. 415.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I rise to claim time in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, let me just read an amendment that passed 
this House unanimously just previous to this discussion, the amendment 
to H.R. 415 offered by Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, ``section 3, domestically-
reproduced energy resources. Nothing in this Act shall impact the 
supply of domestically-produced energy resources.''
  The point being that this motion to recommit has nothing to do with 
the protection of domestic energy resources. It has to do with the 
ability by putting promptly in the motion to recommit to effectively 
kill this legislation.
  This legislation has the support, almost unanimous support, of 
communities, elected officials, the delegation of the State, the 
Governor, and has had 7 years of study in order to receive the 
recommendation for the designations that are before us in this 
legislation.
  I understand the need to talk about energy on any topic. This 
particular legislation has nothing to do with the high cost of gas. It 
has nothing to do with domestic energy supply. If we are looking for 
reasons, perhaps we could walk over the last 8 years of this 
administration and a Republican-controlled Congress and look at the 
failed efforts at really bringing an energy policy to the American 
people. That is the root cause of our problem. The root cause is not 
this designation today.
  Let me yield now to the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first, let's note the 
nonseriousness of this. It says ``promptly.'' It kills the bill. If you 
want to vote against the bill, you can vote against the bill. This says 
``promptly.'' If it were seriously intended to be a legislative act, it 
would have said ``forthwith.''
  Beyond that, it is not simply about energy. The last two lines say 
``nothing shall be used as a basis to restrict current and future 
business and economic activities.'' This is a license to do any 
business whatsoever. Now I know a couple of businesses down there that 
I didn't think the Republican Party would be all in favor of. They 
would love to have this. They will expand it and invite you down and 
give you a discount.
  This isn't just about energy. First of all, it's about killing the 
bill. But what does it say? The gentleman from Arizona read the 
amendment we have adopted about energy. ``Nothing shall be used as a 
basis to restrict current and future business and economic activities 
or expansion of such activities.'' It is hardly about energy.
  The LNG plant has been rejected twice by the Coast Guard and once by 
that radical environmentalist, the Secretary of Commerce, Carlos 
Gutierrez, appointed by George Bush.
  I'm about to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts. He and I 
represent hardworking people, working class people. Many of them are 
Portuguese immigrants and others who became American citizens who have 
lost their industrial base. They are trying to enhance the quality of 
their environment and at the same time offer an alternative economic 
mode.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, don't take it out on them. If 
we've got a political fight over energy, let's carry it out among the 
big boys and girls. Don't turn to these working people and say, do you 
know what? You're not classy enough. You don't deserve environmental 
protection. That is for the elite. That is for the wealthy.
  I yield, finally, to my colleague from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate has been, to say the least, strange. My 
friends on the other side of the aisle have come to the floor with 
pictures of the Taunton River that are not even part of the designation 
that we're talking about. They have said that this is about LNG and 
that Massachusetts doesn't want to do its fair share. Yet we have three 
LNG facilities up and running, and a third that has already been 
permitted. They have confused their energies. They don't know the 
difference between liquefied natural gas, oil and the gasoline you put 
in your automobile. I mean their ignorance on energy is stunning. No 
wonder why they lost the last election.
  And finally, they have tried to make political points at the expense 
of the constituents that I represent and that Barney represents. As 
Barney said, these are hardworking people. The tone

[[Page H6647]]

of this debate and the way my constituents have been characterized is 
insulting. It's a new low even for some of the people on the other side 
of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just say that the Bush 
administration's National Park Service says that this is a good idea. 
It was good enough for them. It should be good enough for you. Defeat 
this motion and vote for the bill.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that the majority leader 
and the Speaker of this House could call a vote at any time on 
increasing U.S. oil production to lower the gas prices for Americans?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his first 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, if this motion did pass, it could be 
recommitted back to the--and I doubt it will--it could be recommitted 
back to the committee from which it came and brought forth on the next 
legislative day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair reaffirmed on November 15, 
2007, at some subsequent time, the committee could meet and report the 
bill back to the House.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, is asking the same unfounded 
inquiry repeatedly a violation of the House under dilatory tactics?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Recognition for parliamentary inquiries is 
within the discretion of the Chair.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WITTMAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on the passage of the bill, if ordered, and the motion 
to suspend with regard to House Concurrent Resolution 295.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 188, 
nays 227, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 506]

                               YEAS--188

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Barton (TX)
     Boswell
     Capps
     Cubin
     Gilchrest
     Green, Al
     Issa
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lucas
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy, Tim
     Peterson (PA)
     Rush
     Saxton
     Scott (GA)
     Shimkus
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Wilson (OH)

                              {time}  1947

  Messrs. STUPAK, NADLER and HOYER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 506, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 175, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 507]

                               YEAS--242

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin

[[Page H6648]]


     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fossella
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--175

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barton (TX)
     Boswell
     Cole (OK)
     Cubin
     Gilchrest
     Green, Al
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lucas
     Miller, Gary
     Peterson (PA)
     Royce
     Rush
     Saxton
     Scott (GA)
     Shimkus
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns

                              {time}  1954

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina changed his vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________