[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15230-15239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 415, TAUNTON RIVER WILD AND SCENIC 
                              DESIGNATION

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1339 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1339

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for 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. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 415 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3.  The House hereby (1) takes from the Speaker's 
     table the bill (S. 2062) to amend the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 to reauthorize 
     that Act, and for other purposes; (2) adopts an amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 
     2786 as passed by the House; (3) passes such bill, as 
     amended; (4) insists on its amendment; and (5) requests a 
     conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous 
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise 
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1339.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1339 provides for the 
consideration of 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.
  This structured rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be 
controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in 
order four

[[Page 15231]]

amendments which are printed in the Rules Committee report. The 
amendments are each debatable for 10 minutes, and the rule also 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and in 
strong support of the underlying legislation. Introduced by my 
colleague from Massachusetts, Chairman Barney Frank, I am proud to be 
an original cosponsor of H.R. 415.

                              {time}  1115

  This legislation would designate portions of the Taunton River in 
Massachusetts as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program. 
It is important to note that this legislation has support from every 
House member from Massachusetts and Rhode Island and from every 
government of the affected communities along the river.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that this designation 
only affects three congressional districts in Massachusetts and two in 
Rhode Island. It does not impact any other State in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, the Taunton River fully qualifies for and deserves this 
designation. As determined by the National Park Service, and I repeat, 
as determined by the National Park Service ``the Taunton River is 
eligible for wild and scenic designation based on its free flowing 
condition and the presence of outstandingly remarkable natural and 
cultural resource values.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that this designation is 
distinct for different segments along the Taunton. Two segments of the 
river would be designated ``scenic'' and two as ``recreational.''
  Now some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have suggested 
that the Taunton isn't scenic enough or that it's too urban for this 
designation. One of my colleagues even went so far as to say that the 
only thing scenic about this area is the graffiti on the bridges. Mr. 
Speaker, I find that statement not just wrong-headed but deeply 
offensive to the people that I represent. That kind of elitism serves 
no purpose and has no role in this debate.
  I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle who believe 
that the Taunton River doesn't meet the right criteria for this 
designation to actually pay attention to what those criteria are. The 
Taunton River is the longest undammed coastal river in New England. It 
is home to over 150 species of birds, 45 species of fish and 360 plant 
species. It is the largest contributor of fresh water to Narragansett 
Bay. And its shoreline provides for a wide variety of recreational 
opportunities. For the communities of Fall River, Somerset and the 
others along the Taunton, this designation will support the economic 
development plans within the area. In my district, the Fall River 
portion of the river, the ``recreational'' designation complements the 
city's plan for waterfront revitalization, which includes a marina and 
a boardwalk.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to address the baseless claim that this 
legislation is some sort of end around to prevent energy development in 
Massachusetts. This is an argument cooked up by one particular energy 
company that wanted to build a liquefied natural gas facility within a 
stone's throw of people's homes. This company has even purchased full-
page newspaper ads in an ill-conceived lobbying campaign. Sadly, some 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have bought into their 
false argument hook, line and sinker.
  First off, efforts to designation the Taunton began well before any 
proposal for a liquefied natural gas plant was announced. My mentor, 
Congressman Joe Moakley, filed legislation to study the river's 
designation in 1999, while the proposal for LNG was made public 3 years 
later in 2002. Secondly, this legislation is based on a study compiled 
by President Bush's National Park Service between 2000 and 2002.
  And finally, this LNG plant proposal has been roundly rejected by the 
United States Coast Guard, the United States Navy, and the Commerce 
Department, due to overwhelming navigational suitability, environmental 
issues and maritime safety concerns. In other words, there is nothing 
this legislation can do that hasn't already been done by the people we 
task to keep our waterways safe.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation has never been about stopping LNG or 
energy production. In fact, by denying the communities and the Taunton 
River this designation, we further hinder their ability to utilize the 
river as a catalyst for economic development. This bill is about 
protecting the natural and cultural resources of the people who live 
along the Taunton River. It's about telling the people of southeastern 
Massachusetts that their environment, their heritage, their 
recreational opportunities and their economic development matter too.
  I very much look forward to this debate. And I am eager to hear what 
my friends on the other side of the aisle have to say about this bill. 
I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this unfair rule and the underlying bill that 
makes a mockery of our Nation's Wild and Scenic River law.
  First, this rule unfairly restricts Members from being able to offer 
amendments on the House floor. It's not the first time. It's a 
continuing pattern that we have seen over and over and over again. 
While every Democrat amendment filed with the Rules Committee was made 
in order, this rule allows only two out of 15 Republican amendments to 
be offered on the floor.
  Seven attempts were made in the Rules Committee meeting on Monday to 
allow more amendments to be offered and to allow the House to consider 
the bill under an open rule allowing every Member of this body an 
opportunity to offer amendments on the House floor. Yet Democrats on 
the Rules Committee voted to block each and every attempt to allow a 
more open consideration of this bill.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may attempt to argue 
that some of the amendments weren't allowed for technical reasons, but 
those excuses ring hollow, Mr. Speaker, when they block every single 
attempt to allow for a more open debate.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, to the underlying bill to designate the Taunton 
River in Massachusetts as a wild and scenic river. Mr. Speaker, I 
openly admit that I have never visited this river myself. But as they 
say, ``a picture is worth a thousand words.'' Mr. Speaker, I could say 
nothing at all, but a picture does say a thousand words. Here I have a 
photograph with me of a portion of this river that is anything but wild 
and scenic.
  Now, a simple glance at this photo would be enough for the House to 
just halt consideration of this legislation. Such a heavily developed 
and industrialized riverfront, with its multilane roadways, massive 
bridges and fuel storage tanks should disqualify, should disqualify 
this section of the river from being labeled wild and scenic.
  Now it's argued that the reason this portion is included is because 
it's ``recreational.'' Mr. Speaker, honestly, it's hard to imagine that 
one would choose to go swimming or enjoy a peaceful canoe trip through 
this portion of the river. Quite simply, this portion of the river 
simply should not be afforded among the highest environmental 
protections possible under Federal law by designating it as a wild and 
scenic river. Mr. Speaker, quite bluntly, if this qualifies, if this 
qualifies as a wild and scenic river under the intent of that statute, 
then downtown Manhattan can be a national forest and Six Flags can be a 
national park.
  This bill was scheduled to be considered by the House last week, yet 
it was postponed and rescheduled again for this week. This delay was 
caused when questions were raised that the true purpose of the bill, to 
name this river as wild and scenic, was to block a liquefied natural 
gas, or LNG, plant that has been proposed to be sited there.

[[Page 15232]]

With record gas prices and high energy costs, Mr. Speaker, this is a 
serious question, because passage of this bill would block the proposed 
LNG plant from ever being built.
  Now my colleagues will argue, as they have already argued, that it 
already won't be built because the Coast Guard and others have raised 
objections and there are difficult hurdles under current law to 
overcome. However, the fundamental point is that today the law allows, 
the law allows today, for an LNG plant to be built if it can meet the 
necessary requirements. If it can't meet them right at this minute, 
then over time they may meet them. Or as the need for this energy 
becomes more apparent, then maybe the groundswell of support could 
allow this project to go forward. But if this law passes, Mr. Speaker, 
it will be impossible to build an LNG plant if this bill becomes law.
  So, Mr. Speaker, at a time when the liberal leaders of this House 
block any effort to increase energy production right here in America, 
when gas prices are skyrocketing and Americans are hurting, now is not 
the time, is not the time, to make energy more difficult to get or more 
expensive.
  Now the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Frank, testified before the Rules 
Committee on Monday. And Mr. McGovern in his remarks elaborated on this 
facility. He asked that the wishes of the Massachusetts delegation be 
respected in naming this a wild and scenic river because it only 
applies to them in Massachusetts. Well, Mr. Speaker, I must note with 
irony, with irony, that a request coming from the Massachusetts 
delegation to respect their wishes on this river, this bill, in 
opposition to this LNG plant. The argument is that this is in their 
backyard. And yet, Mr. Speaker, members of the Massachusetts delegation 
have repeatedly, repeatedly, voted to oppose the wishes of the Alaska 
delegation. On what you might ask? Well specifically on Alaska's wishes 
to develop the oil reserves in ANWR. Mr. Speaker, the folks of 
Massachusetts may have big backyards. But they don't stretch thousands 
of miles away to Alaska.
  We must recognize that if this industrial riverfront is permitted to 
be added to our Nation's wild and scenic rivers list, then truly all 
qualified rivers are diminished. This doesn't just affect 
Massachusetts. It affects every State in which there is a wild and 
scenic river. And in my home State of Washington, there are several.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose this 
bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I have great 
respect for the gentleman from Washington State. But listening to his 
remarks, it makes me sad that this Chamber, this Congress, has kind of 
disintegrated to a point where there seems to be no collegiality and no 
kind of honest debate about what the facts are here.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I'm happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Well, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding. I tried to get him to yield when he was closing on the last 
bill, and he didn't. So when one talks about collegiality, one should 
start maybe with his own.
  The point is, on this issue, is it not correct that in Rules 
Committee last night or the night before last when we were up there, 
you stated, and Mr. Frank stated, very specifically, that the House 
should respect the wishes of the Massachusetts delegation? And is it 
not true that the gentleman I think from Massachusetts and maybe other 
members of the Massachusetts delegation have done precisely the 
opposite as it relates to the wishes of the Alaska delegation?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for has question. I don't recall 
Mr. Frank's remarks verbatim. I am happy to look at the transcript. I 
did not say that. Let me respond here. And maybe the gentleman didn't 
hear my opening statement. But the Taunton River is eligible for a wild 
and scenic designation. But also part of it is eligible based on 
``recreational.'' That is the word that the Bush administration's 
National Park Service has said is appropriate. Now, I very rarely agree 
with the Bush administration on anything. And I'm sorry the gentleman 
disagrees with the Bush administration on this. But what I find 
particularly cynical is the photograph that the gentleman just held up 
which is the exact photograph that this big-moneyed energy company 
published as part of an ad in a number of newspapers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield on that point 
just for clarification? Is the gentleman denying that this is not a 
photograph of the Taunton River?
  Mr. McGOVERN. It is a photograph of the Taunton River. But the 
interesting thing about that photograph is the angle at which it has 
been taken. The fact of the matter is that this photograph that this 
big-moneyed energy company that my friend on the Republican side has 
held up is saying that this will be part of the, this area will be 
included in the designation which seeks to prove I think how 
inappropriate it has become because this industry has actually 
manipulated this photograph. But in fact much of that photograph is of 
a park.
  You will note in the picture a World War II battleship. That is the 
USS Massachusetts. And let me show you it is no part of any industrial 
use today. It's part of a recreational area. The battleship is the 
centerpiece of a very important urban park called the Heritage Park in 
the city of Fall River. And there is a great deal of open space that is 
shielded cleverly, very cleverly in that photograph that was paid for 
by a big-moneyed energy company. On the opposite side of that river are 
boat ramps and houses that go right to the river for recreational 
purposes. And it's part of my district.
  Now the gentleman maybe has a bias against providing working class 
people who live in urban areas any benefits from any kind of 
environmental designation. I disagree with him if that is his opinion. 
But he mentioned that the purpose of all of this was, in fact, to 
prevent an LNG site facility from being built in the middle of Fall 
River.

                              {time}  1130

  Let me put this out there so my colleagues understand this. There are 
currently only eight LNG terminals in the United States of America. Of 
those eight, Massachusetts currently has two LNG terminals in operation 
with a third one that has been approved by FERC. Massachusetts is the 
only State to permit not one, but two new LNG import facilities this 
decade in this country. Each of these facilities is authorized to 
double its output capacity.
  I will yield after I finish my statement.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I think the gentleman is in error. There actually has 
been a new LNG facility that just went online in Louisiana, and two 
more that will open in a few months.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, the bottom line is we in 
Massachusetts realize the need for these LNG import facilities.
  And I would like to point out to the gentleman from Washington, and 
if my geography is correct, Washington is still a coastal State, unless 
that has changed, but that his State has no LNG terminal in operation, 
under construction, or even proposed.
  So when he implies that somehow the Massachusetts delegation is not 
stepping up to the plate in terms of making sure that not only New 
England but this Nation has energy, he is wrong. Massachusetts has been 
a leader on this.
  Let me point out one other thing. This is not a Republican-Democrat 
issue with regard to the LNG facility and the Fall River. Mitt Romney, 
who the last time I checked was a Republican, and still is a 
Republican, was a leading opponent in the siting of the LNG facility in 
the middle of Fall River. In 2006, Governor Romney stated, ``Weaver's 
Cove and Fall River strike me personally as being an ill-advised site 
to receive LNG.'' Realizing that they were trying to site an LNG 
facility in a highly populated area, Governor Romney asserted, ``I 
don't like the idea of an LNG facility going into a populated area, not 
in the post-9/11 world.''

[[Page 15233]]

  We in Massachusetts have worked with energy companies to try to site 
these LNG facilities safely offshore. The idea that you would site an 
LNG facility in an area where there are countless people within a 1-
mile radius of this facility is crazy.
  Richard Clarke, the terrorist expert said, ``This is a bad idea.'' 
Now that is one opinion. Another opinion is the U.S. Coast Guard said 
it is a bad idea. The U.S. Navy says it is a bad idea. The Commerce 
Department says it is a bad idea. You are the only one who says it is a 
good idea, you and a big moneyed energy company.
  Mr. Speaker, we are hearing all kinds of red herrings here, but 
understand one thing, this is not about energy. This is about whether 
or not a working class city, kind of the home base of the industrial 
revolution that is located on this river, can be designated as a wild 
and scenic area, whether or not the recreational aspects of this river 
can be recognized, whether or not we can afford this city of Fall River 
the benefits to help them use this river as a catalyst for economic 
environment.
  It is too bad that this has become an elitist debate about well, no, 
you don't deserve it because this is a working class, urban area, home 
of the industrial revolution. You don't deserve that designation. I 
think that is wrong.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 23\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 18 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend from Washington for 
yielding.
  You know, I am going to try to hurriedly plot these dots so you can 
connect them. But I want to go back because what I would call this 
Congress is the smoke and mirrors Congress. We have heard denials from 
the gentleman about what the real intent of this designation was and 
that the picture that we have here does not speak for what it is.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, most people can look at this photo, and you can 
call it wild and scenic if you want. It looks fairly wild; but scenic, 
I don't know. I haven't been there either. Let me say this. I think we 
need to get this into perspective as to the smoke and mirrors that has 
been going on in this Congress.
  I want to read a quote. Mr. Kanjorski was being interviewed by a 
paper in the town of Ashley. Mr. Kanjorski in his remarks said 
Democrats had overpromised during the 2006 congressional elections by 
implying they could end the war if they controlled Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, here is the result. It says, ``Now, anybody who is a 
good student of government would know that was not true.'' Mr. 
Kanjorski said that in an Ashley town hall meeting in August. ``But you 
know the temptation to want to win back Congress--we sort of stretched 
the facts, and the people ate it up.''
  I think we are seeing a continuation of that. We are stretching the 
facts that this is wild and scenic. Now, I think you go back, and this 
could go back to May of 2007 when we passed the Udall amendment in this 
House which prohibited the mining of shale oil out west. At that point 
in time, even by the majority charts, the price of crude oil went sky 
high with speculation because finally the speculators realized that we 
were not going to do anything to meet our own energy needs.
  Just since President Bush lifted the executive ban and since he had 
the press conference yesterday about drilling, just the very mention 
about lifting the ban, starting to drill and starting to look at our 
own production and our own resources, the price of a barrel of oil has 
dropped over $10 a barrel.
  Now we can do something here, but this is just another nail in the 
coffin for us that people are going to see that we don't want to 
increase energy production. Let me tell you something, the people up 
north had better understand that the price of natural gas and home 
heating oil is double what it was last year. So now if you get cold in 
your home in the winter, you are not even going to be able to afford to 
drive somewhere warm.
  So this, I think, if you look at it and if you look at the overall 
connection of the dots----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 30 additional 
seconds.
  Mr. WESTMORElAND. If you can look at the overall connection of the 
dots, this is just another one of those connections that shows that the 
majority party here is not going to give a clear up-or-down vote on 
increasing our oil production. It is going to continue to give the 
world and other countries the idea that we are going to be dependent on 
their foreign oil, and it is another example of: Well, we may have 
stretched the truth, and the people ate it up.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous speaker, and I 
am confused because he doesn't address what we are talking about here 
which is the designation of the Taunton River as having a wild and 
scenic designation.
  Again that photo that he held up, which my colleague from Washington 
State held up, which was a photo taken by a big moneyed special 
interest energy company, is inaccurate. I mean everything below the 
bridge seen in the middle of that picture is not covered by this bill.
  Here is if you take a picture from the other side which actually is 
the part that we are talking about being covered, it is a much, much 
different picture. It doesn't fit into the strategy of this special 
interest big moneyed energy company, but the reality is you see a much 
different picture of what we are trying to protect and what we are 
trying to preserve.
  If people want to have a debate on energy, fine. I would simply say 
Massachusetts is doing its part. We are actually moving forward on 
licensing more LNG facilities. We recognize the need to do our part. We 
are doing the right thing.
  The objection to this site for that LNG facility is that it is in the 
middle of a densely populated area that when these ships had to go down 
the Taunton River, three bridges needed to be shut down. The Coast 
Guard said it was a bad idea. I'm sorry you know more than the Coast 
Guard, about I trust the Coast Guard to tell me about navigational 
matters more than I do any of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. The U.S. Navy complained about it. The U.S. Department of 
Commerce said it didn't make any sense.
  So this is a smoke screen, and it really is an insult to the people 
who live in this area. These are hardworking people and they don't 
deserve to be a pawn in your political debate. So I would urge my 
colleagues to support the underlying bill and support the rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I made the observation that 
passing this bill with what this picture shows--
  Mr. McGOVERN. Would the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be happy to yield to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. McGOVERN. That picture is inaccurate. You are holding up a 
picture that is inaccurate. What we are looking at there is not what is 
covered by this designation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, when I asked the 
gentleman if this in fact was a picture of the Taunton River, the 
gentleman responded in the affirmative. Now there may be some changes, 
but he did say this is the Taunton River.
  Now in my remarks I said that this diminishes the wild and scenic 
rivers that are in every place in this country. I said that there are 
several of them in my State. So I would just ask my colleagues this one 
simple question: Are we going to change the wild and scenic designation 
in this country to look like

[[Page 15234]]

this? Or like this? This is a picture of the Klickitat River which is a 
wild and scenic designation in my State.
  So if we are going to argue on the merits of wild and scenic, and 
making something that is urban like this as wild and scenic, we need to 
take into consideration what it historically has been, like the 
Klickitat River in my State.
  That is a fundamental argument that is going on here today. There are 
others things that enter into it, and I would be more than happy to 
engage in that later in my remarks. But this is a fundamental 
difference, and what they are trying to do with this wild and scenic 
designation in an urban area compared to what has been done all across 
the country, including my home State of Washington.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have all kinds of inaccurate statements 
being made here and inaccurate photos being shown here.
  Let me repeat, as determined by the National Park Service, ``The 
Taunton River is eligible for wild and scenic designation based on its 
free-flowing condition and the presence of outstandingly remarkable, 
natural and cultural resource values.'' That is a quote from the 
National Park Service.
  It is also important to note that this designation is distinct for 
different segments along the Taunton River. Two segments of the river 
would be designated as scenic and two as recreational. This is not 
something that Congressman Frank or myself came up with out of the 
blue. This is what the Bush administration National Park Service has 
concluded.
  I mean, I trust the National Park Service to tell me whether or not 
something fits this designation or it doesn't fit this designation, 
more so than some of my colleagues who are trying to make this into a 
political football.
  Again, I would show this picture which is a more accurate picture of 
what we are trying to protect. And I would also say again that what I 
find particularly offensive about this debate is that the people who 
are trying to be denied the benefits of this designation are 
hardworking people from Fall River. These are people who work in 
factories. These are people who have really been an engine for the 
economic development of this country over the years. And they are 
working class people. All of a sudden we are told that somehow they 
don't deserve this kind of benefit from this designation. Talk about 
elitism.
  The National Park Service says this is the right thing to do. The 
previous designation of the other part of the Taunton River, by the 
way, when my colleague Joe Moakley brought it up, was voice voted. 
Everybody here thought it was a good thing. Now because we are all into 
politics and it is the election season, people are looking for anything 
to try to make a political point.
  Enough with the political posturing. Let's once in awhile do the 
right thing. Let's once in awhile listen to what the National Park 
Service has said on this issue. Let's do what the people of this 
community want. Let's help this community benefit from the economic 
development incentives that will come from this designation.

                              {time}  1145

  These are good people. This is a good community. I am proud to 
represent the people of Fall River. Congressman Frank is proud to 
represent the people of Fall River, and I urge all my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to put the politics aside and do the right 
thing and vote for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend 
from Louisiana, I want to ask my friend from Massachusetts, and I will 
be happy to yield, that picture you have, I understand, is an artist's 
rendering of the river; is that correct?
  Mr. McGOVERN. This is a photograph.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. It is a photograph?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Yes, it looks so beautiful it looks almost like it has 
been painted, but it's a photograph.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank my colleague from Washington State for yielding 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and this underlying 
bill, because I believe, first of all, this is an abuse of the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act. It's further demonstrating the party here, the 
opposite party position that we have to have an either/or policy. It's 
either the environment or energy.
  Whereas I believe on our side of the aisle, we are advocating that 
the two can march hand-in-hand. I believe this is also a way of 
blocking sensible energy policy going forward. Clearly, I think, the 
American public understands it, as well as we do, that we need a 
comprehensive energy policy.
  I want to make a few points. First of all, we have seen LNG 
development down in my district. I have got one facility that is 
expanding on a river. It's in the midst of a very densely populated 
area. That river is used not only for industrial purposes, but also 
recreational purposes. There has been a record of safety, in fact, an 
unprecedented record of safety.
  We have a new LNG facility that came online, I guess, a couple of 
months ago. Secretary Bodman was down there with me. This is creating 
new American high-paying jobs. Furthermore, there are two other LNG 
facilities under construction. Finally, I would say these are all small 
companies. They are not large, big oil companies.
  One of the companies, the one that does have the one, the facility 
that's new and up and running and building a second one, not only that, 
what they have done is participated in coastal restoration projects and 
marsh preservation. So we know down in Louisiana that our beautiful 
marsh and wetlands can also be a working wetlands.
  We also know that this creates great jobs. We also know there is a 
record of safety with the facility that's in the midst of a densely 
populated area.
  I would ask my colleague, what's he going to say to his constituents 
in Massachusetts and the Northeast when heating oil prices are going to 
be exorbitant in this next winter? What is he going to do? What is he 
going to say?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I would say first of all Massachusetts currently has 
two LNG terminals, and we have licensed another one. We are not opposed 
to LNG. We are doing our part.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. If I may reclaim my time. Why are they intent on 
abusing the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as a backdoor approach to block 
LNG? I don't understand that.
  Clearly, these companies have been good corporate citizens, and they 
have worked to be good stewards of the environment. I will point out 
that one company, in addition to marsh restoration and preservation, 
also prepaid taxes in the State of Louisiana to build schools after 
Hurricane Rita.
  This company also built the new health clinic in a small town that 
never had a health clinic before. These companies are good stewards. 
They show that environmental policy and energy policy can march hand-
in-hand.
  I don't understand the argument that the other side is making. They 
are just intent on blocking comprehensive energy policy, and I oppose 
the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode 
here. This doesn't make any sense. None of this makes any sense.
  First of all, I would say to the gentleman that we have just as many 
LNG facilities as you do in Louisiana. I would say to the gentleman 
that we are moving forward. We just licensed another LNG facility.
  I don't know what he's talking about. It doesn't make any sense to me 
when you talk about we are trying to frustrate our efforts.

[[Page 15235]]

  Let me also say to the gentleman, with regard to this particular 
site, the United States Navy opposed the LNG terminal in Fall River, as 
they indicated it would disrupt their operations in their nearby 
Newport, Rhode Island, base.
  The Commerce Department, Commerce Secretary Gutierrez ruled that Fall 
River would be an inappropriate site, citing the negative impacts on 
the flow of commerce along the waterway and environmental concerns. The 
United States Coast Guard. The Coast Guard.
  Now you may be an expert on navigational issues, but I trust the 
Coast Guard more than I trust you on these issues. The Coast Guard has 
rejected the LNG plant in Fall River three times.
  Captain Roy Nash, the head of the port of southeastern New England, 
found that the plan is ``unsuitable from a navigation safety 
perspective for the type, size and frequency of LNG marine traffic.''
  So this site doesn't make any sense. So the State of Massachusetts 
said, but we want to do our part, so we have licensed another facility. 
So where are we frustrating attempts on energy?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.
  I just want to point out that the gentleman has made an argument 
about population centers precluding the building of these facilities. 
That should not be a preclusion to building because there is a safety 
record, and these facilities can be done safely.
  Mr. McGOVERN. If I may reclaim my time, the U.S. Navy, the Commerce 
Department and the Coast Guard said this particular site is unsuitable. 
Oh, and by the way, here is another photo, not an artist rendition. It 
looks like it might be an artist. It looks, again, very picturesque, 
like it could have been done in oil colors. But this is another photo 
of what we are trying to protect.
  Let me also say that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1969 does not 
discriminate between urban and rural. This bill is consistent with the 
law and recommended by the Bush administration's National Park Service.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman briefly.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. That picture you just showed us is actually a very nice 
site for an LNG facility, but I would point out that I think the Coast 
Guard considerations were about specifically a bridge. That's fine. If 
that's the problem, I understand that. Also, why abuse the act? Why 
abuse the act?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time.
  The gentleman obviously has not read the Coast Guard's recommendation 
on this issue. It is more than just about a bridge, and there are many 
bridges involved.
  Again, I would say to the gentleman that the debate is not about an 
LNG facility, it's about whether or not this area deserves the 
designation that we are debating here today.
  And I'm sorry, I understand it's a political year, it's an election 
year, and the people on the other side are just trying to make 
political points. It's just sad that they are doing so potentially at 
the expense of some good people in Fall River.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 15 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  A lot has been said here just recently in the last exchange about 
plans. I have here a Boston Herald editorial called ``Cold Water on 
River Plan'' dated the 10th of July. I will read parts of it here:
  ``Bay State pols have a long tradition of using the law rather 
creatively to further their own political aims. But the effort by U.S. 
Representative Barney Frank to transform a stretch of industrial 
riverfront in Fall River into a 'wild and scenic' resource is as 
shameless as it gets.''
  They go on to say, ``It is the latest attempt to kill a controversial 
plan for the Weaver's Cove liquefied natural gas terminal.''
  I repeat once again, it's not people from other parts of the country 
talking about this. This is the Boston Globe. Or the Boston Herald.

                [From the Boston Herald, July 10, 2008]

                        Cold Water on River Plan

       Bay State pols have a long tradition of using the law 
     rather creatively to further their own political aims. But 
     the effort by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank to transform a stretch 
     of industrial riverfront in Fall River into a ``wild and 
     scenic'' resource is as shameless as it gets.
       Think ``A River Runs Through It'' and you can picture the 
     waterways that typically win ``wild and scenic'' designation. 
     But until Republicans intervened Frank was close to securing 
     that protected status for the Taunton River, limiting 
     development along the river and its ``immediate 
     environment.''
       It is the latest attempt to kill a controversial plan for 
     the Weaver's Cove liquefied natural gas terminal. A vote was 
     canceled yesterday, with Frank's office suggesting 
     Republicans wanted to make it a ``national issue.''
       Well, they HAVE pointed out the irony of top Democratic 
     leaders (Sens. Kennedy and Kerry sponsored the bill in the 
     Senate) going all out to kill a plan that would ease the 
     delivery of natural gas to New England customers. . . .
       Yes, environmentalists have been seeking a special 
     designation of the river for years. But if anyone believes it 
     would have gained this kind of momentum without Weaver's 
     Cove, well, we have some rusty container ships, fuel storage 
     tanks and warehouses along the Taunton River you might be 
     interested in.
       The amusing thing is none of this seems necessary, given 
     that the Coast Guard has already rejected Weaver's Cove based 
     on quite ligitimate concerns about navigation and safety. 
     Guess you never can have enough insurance.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. There is a difference between the Boston Globe and the 
Boston Herald, I should tell the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration's National Park Service has 
suggested that this is an appropriate designation. Maybe they were 
brainwashed, I don't know. But it is just sad that you have, on the 
other side, some on the other side, have tried to make this a political 
pawn in your election-year politics.
  This is really sad, and it's unfortunate, again, that the potential 
losers on this could be the hardworking people of Fall River and 
Somerset and the people along the Taunton River. This, to me, makes 
sense. Again, the Coast Guard has been emphatic in their opposition to 
this. I am interested. It's fascinating to see some of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle claim they know more than the United States 
Coast Guard. But when it comes to navigational and safety matters, I 
trust them.
  But when it comes to designations, when it comes to parkland 
designations and wild and scenic designations and recreational 
designations, I am going to trust the Bush's administration's National 
Park Service more than some of my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank my friend from Washington for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is almost comical. It is almost comical to have the 
gentleman on the other side of the aisle talking about the credibility 
that the Bush administration brings to this project. I have heard the 
gentleman give Bush no credit for anything. For anything.
  I hear him giving the Navy and the Coast Guard credit, the 
administration's Secretary of the Interior, whatever it is, credit. He 
has never given the Bush administration credit for anything.
  We had WHINSEC, which is in my district, talking about giving the 
military credit and the ability to put forth good judgment. He said, 
no, we're going to expose all the people that are attending this 
college, this facility, to help bring about peaceful negotiations and 
peace in Central America.

[[Page 15236]]

  This is almost comical. And I will tell the gentleman that you can 
fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the 
people all of the time. We are exposing what this project is about, and 
they are grasping at straws to use the argument that they are saying 
and giving the credibility to the Bush administration when they have 
never given him credit for anything.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the gentleman that 
on the issue of energy, Massachusetts has twice as many LNG facilities 
as Georgia. I would suggest he go back and do his part to help provide 
more energy for our country.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  We have had a discussion in several areas on this project. Let me 
start with the most fundamental area, and that's the designation of 
wild and scenic. I pointed out, by making this river, which is 
industrial--and I might add, by the way, that the initial study called 
for studying the wild and scenic designation only on the upper 
stretches, as I understand, of the Taunton River, not the lower. But 
the final report came back, because, as the report said, if the river 
could talk, this would be what they wanted.
  My goodness, we are listening to rivers. I would like to see that 
testimony to see what the river exactly said.
  But at any rate, the bottom half was put into this wild and scenic 
designation.
  As I pointed out, this is dramatically different, dramatically 
different from other wild and scenic designations across the country 
like the Klickitat River in my district. We talked about the issue of 
power and siting energy plants.
  The gentleman from Louisiana, where there are a lot of natural gas 
areas, among other energy producers in that State, is certainly 
knowledgeable when it comes to that. There is a lively exchange on 
this.
  Also, the Boston Herald, as I pointed out said, editorially, a week 
ago, less than a week ago, that this is a shameless way in order to 
take this issue off the table.
  But here is the final component, and we really haven't talked about 
that yet, but I do want to talk about that.
  I have an article here from The Herald News, which is the Fall River 
Herald News, and it's an article, the byline is by Mr. Will Richmond, 
it was written on the 15th of July, which was yesterday.
  The headline that I see here is ``Scenic Designation Could Sink 
Riverfront Businesses.'' I bring that up in this context because my 
friend on the other side of the aisle was making the argument that this 
designation would be good for the economy and so forth, presumably from 
the standpoint of tourism and so forth, but there are some businesses 
that are located right in this area, and they have some real doubts.
  Let me read a couple of excerpts, if I may, out of this article:
  ``With the U.S. House of Representatives scheduled today to vote on 
the designation of the lower Taunton River as part of the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act, shipbuilders and other businesses located on the 
banks of the waterway are anxiously watching.
  ``The designation would hamper businesses, they say, possibly even 
leading to closures.''

                              {time}  1200

  Now before I go on, I would just say, how does that help the people 
that live in this area by this designation?
  And I go on to quote, and I'm quoting a Mr. Donald Church, who is 
with Seaboats, Inc. He is the owner of Seaboats, Inc. And he says, 
``It's all great to be touchy and feely, and it's great to protect the 
environment. But people in this city have got to have jobs.''
  He goes on to say that because of this, there is some question, and 
it ``could easily lead to him selling his business,'' which, I might 
add, has a $5 million annual payroll.
  On the other side of the river, there is another shipbuilder, 
Gladding-Hearn, and their president, Peter Duclos, and I hope I say 
that correctly, said, and I quote, ``Our feeling is that it's a stretch 
to be applying a noble environmental act on this part of the river,'' 
Duclos said. ``This area is industrial historically. Fall River 
wouldn't be here without a deep water part. I'm not sure this 
legislation is in the best interest of the businesses along the 
river.'' And he's talking about potentially adding 50 new jobs, but 
they have some real concerns about this designation.
  Now, I might say, Mr. Speaker, from my experience in the western part 
of the United States, where we have these ``nice'' environmental 
designations, wild and scenic being among them, you have, our 
experience in the West has been, a restriction of use on these rivers, 
rather than an expansion. And this is precisely what these shipbuilder 
owners are saying with this potential designation on the industrial 
area of this river.
  So we have three aspects to this, as I mentioned. We have the aspects 
of undermining what the intent was of wild and scenic designation as it 
was put in law to really protect wild and scenic. We have the issue of 
energy. That has been well discussed, especially when we have energy 
prices going up, and we have a potential here to locate an LNG plant. 
And then we have the issue of jobs in this area where there is concern 
in this area.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that, if for no other reason, it is a 
reason to defeat the rule, it is a reason, actually, to defeat the 
previous question so we can talk about energy; and I will be offering 
an amendment to that effect. But it is about defeating the rule so 
maybe the Rules Committee can go back, make an open rule and perfect 
this legislation to make it more palatable, not only to the Members of 
this House, but also to people that live in that area.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have this inserted in 
the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.

            [From the Fall River Herald News, July 15, 2008]

          Scenic Designation Could Sink Riverfront Businesses

                           (By Will Richmond)

       It's tough to find someone who disagrees that the upper 
     reaches of the Taunton River aren't wild and scenic, but ask 
     some business owners along the lower stretch of the river and 
     you're likely to get a different response.
       With the U.S. House of Representatives scheduled today to 
     vote on the designation of the lower Taunton River as part of 
     the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, shipbuilders and other 
     businesses located on the banks of the waterway are anxiously 
     watching.
       The designation--Senate approval would still be needed 
     should the House pass the measure--would hamper business they 
     say, possibly even leading to closures.
       ``It's all great to be touchy-feely, and it's great to 
     protect the environment, but people in this city got to have 
     jobs,'' Seaboats Inc. owner Donald Church said.
       Church said he is seeking to expand his business's docking 
     abilities as a new vessel is being built, but with the 
     designation's proposal up for consideration, additional 
     hurdles are likely to block his way.
       ``I'm building vessels that are getting too big to place on 
     our dock, but to expand I'm going to have to jump through 
     five more hoops with the Parks Service, and odds are they are 
     going to say `No,' '' Church said.
       He added that attempts to stall expansion could easily lead 
     to him selling his business, which pays out approximately $5 
     million in payroll annually.
       Across the river in Somerset, shipbuilders Gladding-Hearn 
     and Fortier Boats are also concerned about the impact the 
     designation could have on their businesses.
       Gladding-Hearn President Peter Duclos said attempts to 
     conduct maintenance work on the rail tracks that bring 
     completed ships into the river has already been stalled by 
     the potential designation.
       ``Our feeling is that it's a stretch to be applying a noble 
     environmental act to this part of the river,'' Duclos said. 
     ``This area is industrial historically. Fall River wouldn't 
     be here without a deep water port. . . . I'm not sure this 
     legislation is in the best interest of the businesses along 
     the river.''
       Duclos said Gladding-Hearn is anticipating growth that 
     could add 50 new jobs, but he noted the company has already 
     had to turn away several large vessel contracts due to 
     constraints limiting the size of the boats they can 
     construct.
       He said the company's facilities often need to be modified 
     to meet job specifications and

[[Page 15237]]

     the process of acquiring additional permits due to the 
     designation could lead to penalties for not meeting 
     completion dates.
       ``This area needs jobs and economic development, and I 
     think that should be part of this but this act is somewhat 
     contrary to that,'' Duclos said.
       Fortier Boats owner Roger Fortier, whose company is next to 
     Gladding-Hearn on Riverside Avenue, declined comment for the 
     story, but an objection letter he wrote in opposition to the 
     bill indicates the company is concerned about how the 
     designation would affect the maintenance and expanding of 
     their marine travel lift facility and deep draft dock.
       Both Duclos and Church said their companies have no ties to 
     the proposed liquefied natural gas terminal planned for the 
     banks of the river and offered the designation for the 
     remaining stretch of river is appropriate.
       ``It's unfortunate it's become all wrapped up in the LNG 
     thing, but the reality is that is not our fight,'' Duclos 
     said. ``Many of those types of proposals will come and go, 
     but we'll be here.''

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I will 
reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides, 
please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 9\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and 7 minutes to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask unanimous consent to 
insert into the Record an editorial from the Fall River Herald News in 
support of this, in support of the underlying legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

            [From the Fall River Herald News, July 11, 2008]

                    Our View: SouthCoast's Wild Side

       No one would dare argue that the lower portion of the 
     Taunton River wends its way through a lush jungle surrounded 
     by overgrown foliage, inhabited by giant anacondas and 
     teeming with wooly monkeys and three- toed sloths.
       But a river doesn't necessarily have to look like the 
     Amazon to be a fragile ecosystem in need of protection. Yes, 
     people use the Taunton River. Businesses and residences--
     including boat yards, condominium complexes and even power 
     plants--line its shores, bridges span its waters and boaters 
     navigate its currents. But while the river may not reach the 
     same threshold as a tropical rainforest's waterways in terms 
     of ``wild,'' it is definitely scenic and is home to dozens of 
     species of fish and birds that need to be protected from the 
     unremitting encroachment of human development.
       That is the intent of the National Wild and Scenic River 
     designation: to protect rivers with cultural, wildlife, 
     recreational and historic values. The Taunton certainly fits 
     the definition. It is the longest coastal river in New 
     England without dams and supports 45 species of fish and many 
     species of shellfish. The watershed is the habitat for 154 
     types of birds, including 12 rare species. It's shores are 
     home to otter, mink, grey fox and deer. The river's 
     recreational value is obvious by the number of boats on the 
     water on any given summer day and its history--before it was 
     polluted--as a shellfishing ground meets the cultural 
     standard.
       U.S. Rep. Barney Frank recognizes the river's value, 
     prompting him to sponsor legislation to designate it ``wild 
     and scenic,'' supported by Rep. James McGovern and Sens. John 
     Kerry and Edward Kennedy. Unfortunately, Republicans in the 
     U.S. House of Representatives do not support protecting 
     ecosystems like the Taunton River.
       Led by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the House Republican 
     Conference opposes the wild and scenic designation, despite 
     passage by the House Natural Resources Committee, which found 
     the Taunton meets the designation based on its free flow and 
     research value. Bowing once again to Big Energy, the 
     Republicans claim the proposal is a thinly veiled attempt to 
     block transmission of liquefied natural gas through the river 
     to Weaver's Cove. Bishop--who represents a state 2,500 miles 
     away from Massachusetts--referred to the Taunton as ``a 
     business river'' and claimed Frank's legislation was nothing 
     more than an ``effort to stop energy production.''
       Bishop's claims are wrong-headed on a number of fronts, not 
     the least of which is his implication that stemming fossil 
     fuel production is a bad thing given its devastating 
     environmental impacts. Bishop is ignoring the prevalent 
     wildlife in and around the Taunton River and incorrectly 
     assuming that an effect of the designation--which would 
     hamper Hess' LNG efforts--is the intent of the proponents.
       In the face of such short-sighted opposition from 
     Republicans, Frank had requested his legislation be removed 
     from consideration by the full House, which was originally 
     scheduled for this past Wednesday. The vote was postponed and 
     will be heard sometime next week, Frank announced Thursday.
       Hess' and Weaver's Cove Energy's LNG proposal shouldn't 
     even be part of the discussion. Once it finally meets its 
     inevitable demise--removing Big Energy from the discussion--
     the wild and scenic proposal would breeze through the House, 
     as it should. It is unfair to deny SouthCoast residents a 
     clean, safe, protected river because some politicians 
     continue to do the bidding of giant energy corporations.

  Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I had intended to obviously reserve 
my comments till the bill itself this afternoon, but after listening to 
the debate on the rule I felt somewhat compelled to say a few things 
about it.
  Earlier this morning in the 1-minutes, one of the members of the 
Massachusetts delegation came to the floor and spoke about the 
significant problem of heating that will be taking place in the State 
of Massachusetts. He said that there were 350,000 people of 
Massachusetts that needed LIHEAP. That is subsidization for heating 
energy that all of us in the United States pay for the citizens of his 
State, and there would be more this fall. In fact, he said heat is not 
optional. It is something that has to be there.
  Certainly this action right now does not help that problem. It 
retards our efforts to try and come up with it.
  I am also somewhat confused as we are talking about this proposal. It 
is very clear that this proposal to study this river had certain 
sections. We are only talking here so far about segment 4; the lower 
part of the Taunton River, which, for the first time, has been 
designated as a potential wild and scenic river site.
  I will say though that when the Park Service presented their 
information, they did not come up with a recommendation; they came up 
with three recommendations. Only recommendation B is the one that has 
decided to be included in this particular bill, the so-called 
environmental recommendation.
  But I want you to know in the recommendation in which they said this 
particular recommendation is easily for a river that is the most 
developed of any that has ever been submitted for this kind of 
designation, and that would be problematic, and there is no precedent, 
no precedent for this kind of area to be included in a wild and scenic 
designation, although it does meet political expectations of the area.
  Now, there are other options that we could take, and there will be an 
amendment put on this floor to do this the right way, by taking the 
area that in 2000 was designated for study and appropriated for study 
and putting that which does have wild and scenic designation and 
characteristics into existence. But not this lower portion.
  In fact, there is another article that appeared yesterday in the 
Massachusetts paper which simply said, scenic designation could sink 
riverfront businesses. Indeed, what we are trying to do here is an 
effort that will aid some businesses but harm other businesses.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 more minute.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Just as in 2002, the Massachusetts delegation 
asked and received an appropriation to dredge this river in the effort 
to help some economic businesses and not necessarily others. The fact 
that it was dredgeable and that it was dredged, I am sorry. I don't 
know if it was actually done, but the fact that it was eligible for 
dredging ignores the area and the criteria that is necessary even for 
recreational purposes in the wild and scenic designation.
  There are significant problems with this type of approach, not 
represented by us but represented by the Park Service. There are 
problems, as we have talked about, the denial for the permit for an LNG 
port that was supposedly done by Commerce, supposedly done by the Coast 
Guard, and the other group to which the gentleman mentioned, those were 
not permanent denials. Those were temporary denials. In fact, each of 
them said that they could be reinstituted and reapproached. It is very 
possible to reinstitute another

[[Page 15238]]

proposal for a LNG port at this site, unless this bill is passed.
  Now, that is the reality of what is going on here. It is far 
different than some of the spin that we have been hearing. But this is 
a problematic approach.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, after that spin, I am going to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Once again, Mr. Speaker, how much time is 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 4 minutes. 
And the gentleman from Massachusetts has 9\1/2\.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from 
Massachusetts if he is prepared to close, if I close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I will show more pictures. I will be the last one 
speaking on this side.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just asked the gentleman is he 
acknowledging that the other was an artist's rendition? Is he 
acknowledging that then?
  Mr. McGOVERN. No, this is just a photograph. It is so beautiful it 
looks like art.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am talking about the other one.
  Mr. McGOVERN. This is a photograph too. If you come up closer, you 
can see that it is a photograph.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I surmise from that that he 
is the last speaker on that side; is that correct?
  Mr. McGOVERN. That is correct.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, with that then I will yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of considering a bill to designate 
industrialized riverfronts as wild and scenic to block an LNG energy 
plant from ever being built, this Congress should be debating bills 
that result in more energy and more energy production within the United 
States. Instead of bills that could result in higher energy costs, like 
this one, Congress should be working to lower gas prices and decrease 
the cost of energy. America needs to produce more oil and gas and 
energy using our own abundant reserves.
  It is time for the House to debate and vote on bills to open ANWR, 
our oceans and Federal lands to drilling. If we were to increase the 
supply of oil, then the price of oil will decrease. Instead of allowing 
these proposals to be given a fair vote, the liberal leaders of this 
House are bending over backwards to block ideas to produce more 
American-made energy. Today, every Representative will have a chance to 
break Speaker Pelosi's blockage against bills aimed at lowering gas 
prices, and they can do that, Mr. Speaker, by voting no on the previous 
question. By voting no, we can end this obstruction and we can get to 
work.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will simply amend the rule to 
allow the House to consider H.R. 2493, the Fuel Mandate Reduction Act, 
which will reduce the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend 
requirements and onerous government mandates if they contributed to 
unaffordable gas prices. This is a commonsense bill that will help 
lower gas prices by ending government mandates and manipulation that 
increase the cost to everybody's pain at the pump.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can 
debate, in an open manner, the part of the energy crisis and solutions 
to the energy crisis that we face in this country.
  And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of our time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say that this debate has been 
somewhat unfortunate because it has been about everything but what the 
underlying bill is about. As determined by the National Park Service, 
let me quote again, ``The Taunton River is eligible for wild and scenic 
designation, based on its free flowing condition and the presence of 
outstandingly remarkable natural and cultural resource values.''
  It is also important to note, Mr. Speaker, that this designation is 
distinct for different segments along the Taunton. Two segments of the 
river would be designated scenic, and two as recreational. By any 
measure, this should be a noncontroversial bill. This should be up 
under suspension. There should be relatively little debate on this. I 
mean, this is a no-brainer.
  But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have tried to make 
this about everything other than what this truly is about, whether or 
not this community of Fall River, and the community of Somerset and 
other communities along the Taunton River can benefit from this 
designation; whether or not they deserve to be able to get this 
legislation passed, and use this legislation to help be a catalyst for 
economic development.
  This is a hard working city, Mr. Speaker, good people who have hit 
some tough economic times and who are desperately trying to rebuild the 
city by bringing the waterfront back, and this would help.
  And this is not about whether or not a LNG facility should be there 
or not. I mean, I personally believe it should not be there. But the 
State, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is doing its part. I mean, it 
is not like Massachusetts is saying no to any LNG facility. We have two 
up and running, and we have permitted another. So we are doing our 
part.
  My friend from Washington State comes from a coastal State. There are 
no LNG facilities there. I implore him, help us out. Do your part. We 
are doing our part in Massachusetts, so this is not about us saying no 
to LNG. We favor LNG. We favor responsible siting of LNG and we are 
doing that. We have more LNG facilities than anybody else here. So we 
are doing our part. This is not about that. That is just a smoke 
screen. That is just a way to politicize an issue that shouldn't be 
politicized.
  Now, the gentleman's suggestion that we need to start drilling in 
ANWR. The Republicans argue that opening up the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge is an imperative for lowering gas prices, although 
their presidential candidate disagrees with them.
  ANWR, Mr. Speaker, is a pristine wilderness, one of the most 
important onshore polar bear denning habitats in the Arctic. But right 
on the other side of Prudhoe Bay is the National Petroleum Reserve 
Alaska. This area has been set aside for oil and gas exploration since 
the 1920s. And according to the U.S. geological survey, it contains 
more oil than ANWR, over 10 billion barrels of oil total. And it is 
open for leasing, Mr. Speaker. It is open for leasing. About 3 million 
acres have already been leased, and about 4 million more will be up for 
leasing later this year. But there have been only 25 test wells drilled 
there since the year 2000, and no companies are producing oil from NPRA 
yet.
  So why would we need to open ANWR when we have this huge, untapped 
resource right next to the existing oil infrastructure in Alaska? And 
when a natural gas pipeline gets built, NPRA will be even more 
important. It holds over 60 trillion cubic feet of gas, nearly 16 times 
what ANWR holds.
  The focus should be on the area that has the most oil and that is 
open for leasing that isn't a highly sensitive environmental area.
  Mr. Speaker, we need an energy policy in this country. Unfortunately, 
from this White House we have gotten zero. Two oil men who are focused 
on nothing but what the oil companies want, and for too long a Congress 
that has been complicit in giving the oil companies what they want and 
not engaged in forward thinking policies to become energy independent. 
That needs to change.
  But in the short-term, we also need to do something else because the 
fact of the matter is that there are citizens in our country right now 
who are paying record high gas prices, and we have

[[Page 15239]]

a winter fast approaching where oil is going through the roof. We need 
relief now as well.
  And that is why the President should do what the Speaker of the House 
has urged, and that is to tap in to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
which is now filled at a record high, and put more gas and oil into our 
market to help stabilize and lower prices to make sure that people in 
the immediate term can get through these difficult times.

                              {time}  1215

  And then we need to embrace the energy policy and the energy 
principles that the Speaker, the Democratic majority has laid out of a 
way to get to energy independence, a way to drill in a sensible and an 
environmentally sensible way embracing alternatives, clean renewable 
sources of energy now and in the future.
  But what they're proposing is not the way to go. It is a smokescreen. 
This debate has been politicized unnecessarily. This is all about 
political points. It is sad that on an issue so noncontroversial that 
it has come to that, but it has. That's the way they want to play, but 
it's the wrong way to do things around here.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and 
a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1339 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, 
     consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2493) to amend the Clean 
     Air Act to provide for a reduction in the number of boutique 
     fuels, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and (2) an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by 
     Representative Dingell of Michigan or his designee, which 
     shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable 
     for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the remaining time I have, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________