Expressing the deepest appreciation of Congress to the families of members of the United States Armed Forces.

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.

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

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.

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.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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.

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.

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. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I will be happy to close when you are ready.

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

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. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

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.

Let me continue to reserve until we are done.

I am prepared to close whenever the gentleman from Massachusetts is.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, though to be honest, I'm not in opposition to this amendment.

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. Chairman, as Mr. Pearce's designee, I offer amendment No. 3 made in order under the rule.

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. Chairman, I would suggest a wise choice of action, and I will yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, kind of.

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.

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.

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

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.

Would the gentleman yield?

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.

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

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.

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.

I claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

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.

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.

How much time do I have remaining?

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. 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. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is asking the same unfounded inquiry repeatedly a violation of the House under dilatory tactics?

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.

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.

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. 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

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.

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield an additional 1 minute to Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains at this point?

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, let me yield to the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Frank, for such time as he may consume.

Let me yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to close. Let me inquire of my colleague how many speakers he has.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

And I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and preserve the integrity of the legislation that is before us.

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

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.

I rise to claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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. 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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.