Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2008

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1339 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

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 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.

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. 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.

I'm happy to yield to the gentleman.

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.

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.

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.

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.''

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. 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.

Would the gentleman yield to me?

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. 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.

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.

This is a photograph.

Yes, it looks so beautiful it looks almost like it has been painted, but it's a photograph.

Would the gentleman yield?

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. 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.

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?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

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.

I yield to the gentleman briefly.

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.

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. 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. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides, please?

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.

Mr. Speaker, after that spin, I am going to reserve the balance of my time.

I will show more pictures. I will be the last one speaking on this side.

No, this is just a photograph. It is so beautiful it looks like art.

This is a photograph too. If you come up closer, you can see that it is a photograph.

That is correct.

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 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.

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.

I yield back the remaining time I have, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

This is a reauthorization, and I believe with the initiative of the gentleman from New Mexico, which I hope the House will adopt, will extend the Federal program that responds to the economic needs of the Native Americans. It also has a provision reauthorizing the Native Hawaiian legislation.

The program primarily provides funding, subject, of course, to appropriation, to the recognized tribes for housing. Members will be aware, if they represent areas where the tribes are and if they have visited those areas, that inadequate housing is a serious social problem for many of our Native American residents. And this is a bill that provides money to them to help them meet that need.

Now, the program is changed in three ways: First, as I said, it has not yet been changed but we expect it to be. Our committee has unanimously expressed its support for an amendment that was drafted by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), who will be offering it, which creates an economic development program to go along with the housing program, and we do believe adequate housing and economic development go hand in hand.

Secondly, at the request of the tribes, the Indian Housing Council, we have added in this a provision for a reserve fund and we have also provided funding for a self-determination program. So this bill comes before us strongly supported by the broad range of the tribes and it continues Federal support to help the tribes themselves build housing and will, I hope, also now have a component for economic development.

There is one item of some controversy which I think all of us involved here regret but we cannot ignore. The gentleman from North Carolina will be offering an amendment which says that no funding under this bill, including the housing program and the, I hope to be adopted, economic development program to the one tribe, the Cherokees, who have recently decided that the descendants of the slaves that the tribe had in the 19th century will be excluded from tribal benefits despite a treaty obligation to the contrary, we hope in the end that will never be necessary. In fact, I believe we will see an amendment that will make it clear that the amendment will only apply as long as the tribe maintains that position and there is pending litigation in the tribal court to change it. We hope it is changed. That's, as I see, the only controversy that applies to the program itself. I take it back. I know there will be an amendment to strike the Native Hawaiian program, and we will very vigorously oppose that. We have had that debate before. This is a program that works well, that is overwhelmingly supported in the State of Hawaii, and we believe should be allowed to continue.

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

Mr. Chairman, there are issues in which a number of Members of the House are recognized as leaders. There are sometimes issues where one particular Member, by the force of his commitment, by the intellectual powers he brings to bear, by the length of that commitment, really stands out as a leader. And on this particular issue, the issue of Native Americans in general, that is our colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) dating back from his days in the State legislature in Michigan, when he represented a district with no Native Americans. They named cars in his district after Native Americans, but they're the only ones with those names that lived there. And just out of a concern that America honor its commitment in this area, which we haven't always done, he has been for many years a champion of the cause of Native Americans.

I am delighted to have worked with him on this bill, he is the sponsor of the bill, and I yield him such time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I also yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I agree that the amendment is a useful one, and I support it. The gentleman from Oklahoma, who is a member of the Financial Services Committee, has been a very able advocate for Native Americans on a variety of issues, as well as on others. I think this is an example of his constructive approach. But I do want to take some exception with the reasons for it. And we can do things for somewhat different reasons. I don't think what the gentleman from North Carolina was doing was rash.

In terms of what is best for the tribes, what we are doing here is trying to enforce a treaty. Frankly, I think the tribes have suffered more from violations of treaties than they have been the violators of treaties. I think that, in fact, it is a national embarrassment that this Federal Government has historically been the one that has initiated breaches of treaties and ignored treaties. So I am glad to say this is a sign here, not simply on the merits of including the Freedmen, but a reaffirmation by this Congress that we will hold everybody to those treaties. I do believe by establishing that principle, we will be doing the Native Americans in the end some good, as well.

Beyond that, in terms of timing, I understand this is in the courts. But let's be clear what is in the courts. The issue here is whether a decision taken by the tribe to exclude the Freedmen, I believe, in violation of the treaty should be upheld or not. At any minute, the tribe could resolve this by saying, okay, we will abide by the treaty. So it is not that they need judicial permission to do that. They don't have to await the outcome.

Given all that, I do agree if the court decision, the tribal court as I understand it, upholds the right of the Freedmen, if the current status of the Freedmen is maintained, then the amendment wouldn't be necessary, and, in fact, if that had been the case, the gentleman from North Carolina wouldn't have offered it.

As all the Members have said, this is a very agonizing issue for many of us. None of us wants to be put to this kind of a test. But the principle of adhering to the treaties, I think, governs. The gentleman from Oklahoma has proposed a useful amendment. As I understand it, he cooperated with the gentleman from North Carolina. They worked together on this. And what this says is if the resolution comes either by a court decision that says the Freedmen must be continued as tribal members or by a decision by the Cherokees, and again, they aren't bound by a decision by the court not to do this. They could always do it. So from the standpoint of cutting off, you know, they say when people are in civil contempt they have the keys in their pockets. The Cherokees have the cash here. It is entirely up to them as to whether or not the benefits continue to flow. Nothing in the gentleman from North Carolina's amendment would in any way impede the flow of funds to the Cherokees unless they are found to be by us, I think very clearly, in violation of the treaty.

So if the Cherokees, either because of the tribal court or of their own volition, decide to continue what has been the status quo of the Freedmen, then there is no cutoff. So I do not believe it can fairly be said that this will penalize them. It leaves it in their hands.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Oklahoma, we have had the cooperation from Members on the other side, I think we have come to as good a resolution to a difficult situation as possible. I hope both amendments are adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for the amendment and my appreciation and admiration for the gentleman from New Mexico. This is a very important piece of this.

We try to do this in our committee increasingly. We tried to do it with regard to the recovery from the hurricane as well. It is housing and economic development. They are both necessary, and they go together. If you don't have decent housing that is affordable, you are going to have a hard time filling the jobs. But if you don't have economic development, then housing without it is somewhat sterile.

The gentleman from New Mexico has come up with a very thoughtful approach here. It is very logical to make this part of this program. There was some original talk about it being separate, but I think from the standpoint of making sure this survives all the way through the process, it is better to link the two, because the underlying housing program is going to expire and, frankly, putting them together this way gives us more assurance that it will ultimately be signed and not caught up in some unrelated controversy.

So both procedurally and substantively, the gentleman from New Mexico has made the right choices, and I join in hoping the amendment is adopted.

Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I implore Members of the House not to give in to this effort to invoke judicial activism, to cancel the vote of the people's elected Representative.

My friends on the Republican side are very selective in their denunciation of judicial activism. From time to time, they complain, if the courts uphold some fundamental constitutional right, that our ability as elected officials to make public policy has been trifled with. Here the shoe is very much on the other foot, and I think the foot on which the shoe is is in the mouth.

This is an effort to overrule the overwhelming decision of the people of Hawaii through their elected officials to create these programs. There are few things in Hawaii that are as broadly supported as this housing program.

There are controversial aspects of some of what goes on in Hawaii. We are aware of none here. This has been fiercely defended by everyone who is representing Hawaii who has been here since I have been here, and this Congress is voting on it.

What are we told? What is the argument? Well, the Supreme Court doesn't think you should do that. What happened to the objection to judicial activism? What happened to the will of the people?

In fact, as the gentlewoman from Hawaii has pointed out, there is no clear-cut Supreme Court decision here. There is room for us to make choices. But I am struck at the ease with which some of my conservative colleagues invoke this principle of popular rule against judicial activism in such a selective fashion.

This harms no one. This isn't excluding anyone from anything. It is providing housing for people who need it. The gentlewoman from Hawaii has given a very good explanation of the history.

I do not understand, Mr. Chairman. This is a fairly small program affecting a fairly small number of people in Hawaii. It is overwhelmingly supported by the people of Hawaii.

Mr. Chairman, what motivates Members of this house to get up and interfere with the arrangements that the people of Hawaii have arrived at? What drives them? What angers them that the arrangement has been reached that says this to the Native Hawaiians? And no one disputes the history that our friend from Hawaii has given. The United States came in and overthrew the government. That is very well documented.

What drives people at this point to continue to battle against this effort to help these Native Hawaiians and to invoke the courts to say we don't care what the votes were in Hawaii. We don't care about an overwhelming vote in the U.S. House.

This is a very reasonable effort by the polity of Hawaii, the Native Hawaiians and others, to meet a very real need. No one is saying the program is badly run. No one is saying it is corrupt. No one is saying it is unnecessary.

There is some hyper-abstract, ideological objection to people reaching out to their fellow residents in need. And while it is overwhelmingly supported, what we have is an ideological objection, the nature of which I cannot understand. No one has told me what harm is done by this. I don't understand who this hurts. But somehow, people are motivated to attack this program which helps this particular, fairly small minority of people. And then, absent any rational arguments in my judgment, they invoke the principle of judicial supremacy, which they so often scorn in other contexts. I hope this amendment is defeated.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I just want to give a little more information than we got in the last intervention from the gentleman from Georgia.

He disappointed me when he decided to inform us that the bill had been defeated in March. Yes, it was defeated. It was ``defeated'' by a vote of 272 ``yes'' and 150 ``no.'' It lost because it required two- thirds.

But I must say, Mr. Chairman, to refer to a bill having been defeated to refute the notion that it was widely supported and to neglect to mention that in fact it got a 122-vote majority and simply failed by 10 votes to get two-thirds, is a very incomplete reporting of the facts.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand this amendment, it is to make illegal what is already illegal, and since it was offered I

guess to the appropriations bill, it is to make apparently for the second time illegal what is already illegal, but the gentleman from Iowa explains why it is necessary.

It is that as we approach the next to the last year of an 8-year term for President Bush, his administration is still unable and apparently, according to the gentleman, unwilling to enforce that law.

The gentleman says the Federal Government, headed of course by President Bush, is the largest employer of people who are here illegally and not able to work; and he says that they lack conviction.

Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to take on various responsibilities as chairman of the committee. Defending the President against the gentleman from Iowa is not one of the things I'm prepared to do today.

The gentleman from Iowa believes it's important for us for the third time to pass a law that he said the administration wouldn't enforce. I suppose the House could do that. I don't see any reason to think that they're going to enforce it any more this time than the other two times it was binding.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that does not make a great deal of sense, even in its own terms.

First of all, the PAYGO principle applies in the appropriations process. Authorizations are authorizations. The Appropriations Committee balances the various authorizations. Nothing is committed to be spent by this bill.

What it says, however, is really quite striking. It says no authorization or appropriation shall be effective except to the extent that this act or the amendments made by this act provide for offsetting decreases. In other words, if you thought that it was important to provide housing for the Native Americans who live in such desperate straits in so many places and make up for that elsewhere in the Federal budget, you couldn't do that.

This says if you want to help the housing needs of American Indians, then you better reduce housing somewhere else. For the disabled? For the elderly? It does not allow for there to be offsetting decreases elsewhere.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Well, I will take back my time to say the gentleman has just stood up and said, look, I don't understand this language; I just borrowed it from you. Well, don't borrow things if you don't know how to use them. I mean, don't lend your car to someone who can't drive.

The fact is that the gentleman apparently didn't understand the implications of what he borrowed because the way this goes now, PAYGO in general has broader application. In this particular case, what it says is within this act. So if you want to spend more money on Indian housing, you have to in the same act, under this act, find offsets elsewhere. This is an example of how he misunderstands the process.

I would also say by the way there's a selectively to this because we don't get this amendment on every spending bill. Maybe it was offered on some of the other bills, the Ag bill, the space authorization. I don't see it all the time. I didn't see it on the Defense bill. Are we going to get this on the Iraq supplemental? I mean, I don't know how much we're going to spend here, but whatever we spend here, we spend in about, what, a week in the Iraq supplemental. I don't see it coming there. Somehow this becomes particularly important when we are trying to help people in dire straits; but even there, it's not logical.

Nothing in here will break PAYGO. PAYGO applies in an overall basis at the appropriations process.

If the gentleman wants me to yield, I'll be glad to yield.

No, that's not what it says.

I will take back my time to say the gentleman hasn't read his amendment. Here's what it says: to the extent that this act or the amendments made by this act provide for offsetting decreases in spending of the Federal Government.

Now, the rules of the House are such that you could not here offset other programs. You have germaneness rules. So under the terms of this amendment, you would have to make reductions in this same act subject to the same act.

No, because the gentleman keeps repeating his error.

The fact is that PAYGO applies in a broader context. That's the problem. If you want to do PAYGO, you want to be able to say at the appropriations process, we'll shut this down here and we will increase it there.

Again, as I said, it's very selectively applied. The amendment does not have any real effect on PAYGO, except if it were adopted it would apparently require us in this very bill, in which we authorize more money for Indian housing, to reduce, I don't know, Indian housing or something else because it's internal to this.

You couldn't say that a Mars space shot was wrong or that we're spending too much money in the farm bill. It would be internal to this act. That's the problem with taking the general PAYGO principle and trying to microapply it.

The fact is that the Indian housing program is a very important one. To single this out for this kind of restrictive approach beyond the general PAYGO principle would victimize people who are very much in need. So I hope the amendment is defeated.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Georgia misunderstands my view.

What I want is fiscal discipline. What I object to is the very selective application of that to people who are in need. The gentleman from Iowa says we are going to restore freedom.

I don't think the freedom of Navajo children that live in inadequate housing is something worth defending. I am especially struck by the fact that we are about to ask the President to spend tens of billions more where we spent hundreds of billions in the war in Iraq.

I offered an amendment a year ago to restrict spending on a manned space shot to Mars. I lost on the floor of this House.

I don't know how every Member voted. I do know a majority of the Republican Party voted against me because the President wanted to send a man to Mars.

I voted against the Agriculture bill. I voted for an amendment that would have cut the spending there. But to be accused of being careless with the taxpayers' money by people who have supported this enormous corruption-ridden expenditure of hundreds of billions in Iraq is like being called silly by the Three Stooges.

Now, back to the gentleman from Georgia. He says well, don't blame me. The gentleman says he just borrowed the amendment from other people. It's germane to its rules. The gentleman could be more creative than that.

Here's the point. This is why you don't do the PAYGO in this restrictive fashion program by program, selectively by program by program.

When you like a program that spends a lot of money, in some areas you don't do it. If you don't like the program, you do it, and you claim it's just the neutral principle of fiscal responsibility. But PAYGO is sensibly applied over the whole budget, over the whole appropriations process. You can say, you know, we need more in the environmental area, we need more in the housing area, we need more in the transportation area. Let's reduce it in the manned space shot to Mars.

The way this is written, the only way you could have this pass and be valid would be if you cut within this program. The gentleman says, well, those are the rules of germaneness. Yes, that's why you do PAYGO on a broader scale.

To say you can only do Indian housing if you cut other things that are germane to this bill is precisely to shield the manned space shot to Mars, it's to shield expensive military spending, it's to shield cotton subsidies beyond what ought to be, and then say, you know what, if you're going to interfere with the freedom of these Navajo children to live in squalor, then we're going to have to make you cut back on money elsewhere.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I noted in the list of amendments submitted there was a second amendment that the gentleman from Georgia had on the question of illegal immigrants being in the program.

I was wondering whether that was going to be offered.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I appreciate that. I was struck by the gentleman offering it. I thought it was dangerous for the gentleman to offer this amendment to a Native American housing program which cracked down on illegal immigrants, because I think the Native Americans' response would have been, why didn't we think of that? So it was probably good for all of us that he decided prudence overruled his decision to offer it.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

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. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. 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.

Would the gentleman yield?

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?

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. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

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. 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--

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

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 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. 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?

It is a photograph?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, how much time on both sides?

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. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

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.''

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.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

I yield the gentleman 1 more minute.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, how much time is on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from Massachusetts if he is prepared to close, if I close.

I just asked the gentleman is he acknowledging that the other was an artist's rendition? Is he acknowledging that then?

I am talking about the other one.

Mr. Speaker, I surmise from that that he is the last speaker on that side; is that correct?

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.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment brought by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Perhaps I will work backwards through this from what I have heard during this debate. One of them would be the decision that was made in Rice v. Cayetano in the year 2000 that Native Hawaiians are an ethnic group and that it is unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act to provide special protected status and privileges to people based upon their ethnicity. To raise that issue as an argument here on the floor isn't railing against judicial activism. To bring an amendment here to the floor of the United States Congress and ask the people's House to provide a majority vote on whether or not to authorize funds to go to Native Hawaiians, it isn't a conflict with judicial activism; to the contrary, it calls upon the people through their elected representative to make that decision. I think it is very consistent with our Constitution. It isn't railing against judicial activism; it simply recognizes the case and recognizes the Constitution.

With regard to Chief Justice Roberts making the argument in favor of the Hawaiian side of this argument, if my recollection is correct, and I believe it is, that was then private sector attorney John Roberts who made that decision who was under the employment of people who had hired him to make the best argument he could make. But I don't remember him saying he had won the argument. So we know that when attorneys are in private practice, they take on clients and they do the best job they can of making that argument. The attorneys that argued in Rice v. Cayetano, the prevailing side was the side of the Constitution and the side of the people.

I have represented two reservations now for 11 years in either the Iowa Senate or the United States Congress. I have had good relations with the people there on the reservations in my district, and it echoes across the Missouri River into Nebraska. I am not without some sense of experience and sensitivity when it comes to these issues that have to do with tribes, reservations and ethnicity.

But I am concerned about a consistent and constant effort to balkanize America, to encourage Americans to divide themselves into groups and identify themselves based upon their ethnicity and the national origin of their ancestors.

I listen and I hear there are 2,100 Native Hawaiians living in Georgia. Why can't we just call them Georgians? Why can't we call them Americans? Why can't we, as the voice of the people, encourage each other to remember our history and remember the legacy and remember the cultures that come, but focus on being Americans and erase the lines between us rather than drawing continually brighter and brighter lines, further balkanizing America, encouraging people to gather together as ethnicities in enclaves.

And I am going to be one who will be, if the day comes that this Hawaiian legislation, the big bill comes to this floor, I will be opposing it as well, Mr. Chairman, because that divides Americans and it sets a new standard that has not been set and that is recognizing ethnicities as tribes. If that happens, any ethnicity that can gain the political leverage to gain a majority vote here on the floor of Congress, here in the House and in the Senate, can then be raised to the same level that we have set aside for Native Americans that we are dealing with here in this bill.

So this slipped in. This authorization slipped in in the year 2000 without a lot of opposition. I agree with the gentlelady's position there. It should have been opposed. I think it was a mistake by Congress, and it brought about a $9 million appropriation in 2007. It is probably a $25 million appropriation obligation through about the year 2012.

This is where we draw the line. This is where we have to take the stand on what is really the Constitution and what is right. Ethnicities can't be granted special status.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one that everybody in this body has seen before. It is an amendment that I brought to a number of the appropriations bills, and at least three times has been adopted by a bipartisan effort. In fact, I don't believe it has come to a recorded vote at any time.

What it does is it limits the use of the funds that might be authorized by this bill. It says no amounts made available pursuant to any authorization of appropriations under this act or under the amendments made by this act may be used to employ workers described in section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

What this amendment does is it ensures that as funds are appropriated under this authorization, that they will not be used to hire people that cannot lawfully work in the United States. That would include those who are here illegally and those who are here legally without work authorization.

I would point out that our Federal Government, by the statistics that have been produced by the inspector general of the Social Security Administration is likely, and I say ``likely,'' I don't think they say ``likely,'' the largest employer of nonauthorized workers in the United States.

We issued millions of Social Security numbers over the years going back into the 1990s to people who were not authorized to work but they needed a Social Security number for one reason or another, a list of benefits which I also don't agree with nor comprehend. We slowed that down dramatically, and I don't know that that practice continues to exist.

But those Social Security numbers have been used to gain employment and to gain employment with the Federal agencies. They monitored seven Federal agencies, seven State agencies and three local governments; and out of that came a number that about 44 percent of those non-work Social Security numbers had been used to gain employment. Even though those cards will say on them non-work, and even if you run the numbers through the Social Security Administration database, they all come back and say not authorized to work, we still have those people working for government at all levels and especially the Federal Government.

And so if we are ever to clean up our act, if we're ever to compel private employers to no longer hire those who are illegally present in the United States, the least we can do is ensure that the employees of government are lawful employees.

And so this amendment says that none of these funds that are authorized may be used to hire those people who are not legal to work in the United States. This would include illegal aliens. It would include non-work Social Security numbers, and to give a broader definition of this, those that are here on student visas without authorization to work, those who are here on visitors visas, those kind of lawfully present as well as unlawfully present people are not authorized to work in the United States. These funds would be prohibited from being utilized for that purpose.

This is a step down the path, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we need to continue to take. We have a consensus that we need to turn up the pressure on employers. Well, government's the largest employer, and in fact, all of government in the United States has over 21 million employees. Out of 300 million people, over 21 million employees, and of those 21 million employees, a significant number are those that are not authorized to work in the United States. That means that whatever they might be doing, under this act they should be lawful employees.

They can use the basic pilot program which now we call e-verify and run those Social Security numbers through there. I've sat and run it myself. It's pretty easy. The longest delay I could create by giving it a confusing message was 6 seconds. It's instantaneous analysis.

We also need the Social Security Administration to run their database against the Department of Homeland Security's database. They would flush out most of these non-work Social Security numbers. The administration has to have conviction on this issue. This is a way to bring them towards more conviction on this issue. They've been reluctant.

I would urge adoption of this amendment. This is something that, again, three times has passed this floor, and it's something I believe that's common sense that the American people strongly support, and I would urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Price amendment.

One of the things I wanted to speak to was the list that was read to us earlier about Native American issues that show growing numbers of Republicans that voted ``no'' on appropriations or authorizations for Native American issues, the 50-some that went to 70-some that was presented by the gentleman from Hawaii, whose judgment and opinion and spirit and personality certainly I appreciate here. I make nothing but complimentary comments with regard to that.

But I would submit that voting ``no'' on a bill that increases spending or expands authorization and considering that to be somehow a vote against a Native American tribe or against an ethnicity, protecting the American taxpayers and protecting the Constitution is a vote for Americans. That's what we have to be first. That was a point I made earlier.

I just wanted to have that opportunity to speak to that issue, that voting ``no'' on appropriations and authorizations because they have something in their title that sounds good that has to do with our collective national history or heritage doesn't mean that it's against the descendents of the ones that earned that reputation.

What it does mean is that we defend the Constitution, we defend the appropriations process, the taxpayer, fiscal responsibility and PAYGO. That's what I am standing here now and endorsing, promoting and asking adoption of the Price amendment because it defends PAYGO.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Again, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Price amendment and PAYGO.

PAYGO often, in this Congress, includes finding new ways to collect revenue from people that didn't owe it before. That was never my idea of PAYGO. My idea of PAYGO was we would limit our spending to stay within the constraints of the revenue stream that's coming in.

So the day is going to come when the American taxpayers rise up. They understand what's going on here. They are seeing that a lot of the effort to ignore PAYGO is resulting in increased taxes and increasing the revenue stream of the United States at the expense of our businesses.

We know that businesses don't pay taxes. It's the consumers that pay taxes, businesses tack the tax onto the retail prices.

We need to slow down this appetite for spending. We need to slow down this appetite for expanding authorizations and appropriations and the services of the Federal Government. You can go with one of two equations, and one of those equations is government can be all and do all and become the complete nanny state, or you can ask for more personal responsibility. That means less government, it also means less taxes, and the bottom line is, more freedom.

The Price amendment endorses PAYGO, holds us to those guidelines that we have agreed to here, and, in the end, it yields more freedom, more personal responsibility and less tax burden.

I urge adoption of the Price amendment.

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

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

I rise to offer support for H.R. 2786, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act.

Chairman Frank has described it very well. Basically, we are trying to see that the plight of Native Americans in their housing can be improved. It is basically fairly simple.

As home to many Native American tribes, New Mexico sees this problem up close. The lack of standard housing, the availability of substandard housing, the lack of economic development opportunities, the lack of infrastructure such as water and wastewater treatment facilities all continue to plague people who are trying to make the tribal grounds their home and their place of habitation.

So I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the bill and appreciate the hard work of Representative Kildee, Chairman Frank, and Chairwoman Waters in drafting a bill that begins to address these problems.

One of the things that I think is most important is the flexibility and self-determination that begins to work its way into the legislation. Washington has never been the right place to make decisions for either local, State, or tribal governments, and in this bill we begin to send more of that autonomy, to send more of the decision-making power back to the tribes, which I think is an excellent opportunity for them to begin to find their way to self-sufficiency.

We have had one of my good friends come and testify on the bill. That was the president of the Mescalero Apaches, Mark Chino, who came here during the Financial Services Committee's consideration of the bill and gave his insights on why the program is needed. And, again, I would just like to commend each one of the tribal leaders throughout not only New Mexico but throughout this country for really doing their job to begin to see that tribes deal with the problems that face them, not waiting for the Federal Government to come around and not waiting for BIA, not waiting for any of the agencies. And this bill, in its block grant program, begins to do that.

Another one of the significant things of this bill is that it allows tribes to take loans out, to incur indebtedness, to issue bonds in order to get infrastructure on the tribal grounds. I know that the Mescaleros do not have their own wastewater treatment facility. They instead work with the local communities of Ruidoso and Ruidoso Downs to deal with the wastewater treatment. But as tribes across the country are allowed to incur indebtedness for these solutions, then I think that is going to be extraordinarily important.

Some of the tribes have used their housing money, for instance, to go to FEMA where many of the trailers that were bought and put there for Hurricane Katrina victims ended up not being needed or used, and different tribes, which the Mescaleros were, I think, the first in the Nation to go take advantage of some of those trailers, move them into their native grounds. And it represents a significant improvement over what some of the families already had. So we are beginning to see those roots and those seeds of self-determination already make a difference in the lives of Native Americans. And with this reauthorization, we will be able to continue to see those seeds of local progress, local input becoming the way that we do business.

I support the bill and look forward to the discussion.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would compliment the gentleman from Michigan for his work on this legislation. He has been tireless in his support of and the working of the legislation to get it to this point on the floor.

In my district we have several tribes, including Laguna, Acoma, Zuni, Mescalero, Isleta, the Ramah Navajo chapter, Tohajiilee Navajo chapter and the Alamo Navajo chapter, and each are faced with different difficulties. That's the reason that the flexibility is so important that is offered in this legislation.

Flexibility and autonomy are the beginning points, and accountability then is kind of the finishing point. Given the opportunity to solve their own problems, given the resources to solve their problems holds the tribes accountable. And I have not found one that finds this distressing in any way.

Too often I think that the Federal Government has been looked at as the caretaker of entire cultures, and literally that's not possible that the caretaker of the culture has to be the cultural members themselves. We see significant advances and capabilities in these areas. And, again, I am happy to be a part of this particular effort in this particular extension of flexibility and accountability.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would claim time in opposition, though I may not speak in opposition to the amendment.

I thank the chairman and I thank the gentleman for his amendment.

This is the same amendment that was offered to a freestanding piece of legislation that was offered in the Financial Services Committee. At that point, I commended the gentleman, Mr. Watt, for his work on justice, equality and fairness, and recognize that. I also favor loud and extremely clear messages, and this language is that.

My concern on the day that we accepted this amendment as a part of our freestanding bill was that the underlying bill addresses some of the most needy, most impoverished rural areas in our Nation, and I would just hate for some of those areas to be disadvantaged simply because they are caught in this particular fight.

There is pending litigation on the subject. And I wonder if it would not be better for us to let that litigation run its course. There is always opportunity for us, as a freestanding body, to come back and address this issue with legislation if it does not clear up in the court case.

So, again, I compliment the gentleman for the clear and concise message that he is delivering. I am not opposed to the message. In fact, I support the message of justice and fairness and equality, but would continue to wonder out loud if this is the proper vehicle.

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Boren to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Watt

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to H.R. 2786, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007. While NAHASDA continues the great practice of giving tribes more flexibility to develop housing, I believe that we can do more.

We all know that economic development and infrastructure needs are acute in Indian Country. My amendment allows Native Americans to receive the same opportunity for economic development that States, cities and other units of local government across the United States enjoy without an increase in direct appropriations.

Representative Renzi from Arizona, a good friend, has similar stand- alone legislation, the Tribal Economic Development and Infrastructure Support Act of 2007. I appreciate his hard work on this important issue.

Currently, communities that receive direct funding from the Community Development Block Grant program may borrow or issue bonded debt for up to five times their actual CDBG allocation. This is the section 108 loan guarantee program and it encourages economic development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities, and large-scale physical development projects.

Title 6 of NAHASDA is similar to the section 108 statute and allows tribes to borrow or issue bonded debt up to five times their annual NAHASDA allocation for housing purposes only. The title VI program has been underutilized in part because the eligible projects are limited to low-income activities that do not generate sufficient income to pay back these loans.

My amendment gives to tribes the same access to vital economic and infrastructure resources that non-tribal communities currently use.

Specifically, my amendment authorizes a demonstration program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide for guarantees to loans for housing-related economic infrastructure and development on tribal lands. The demonstration project embodied in this bill will build not only better neighborhoods, but also build the economic infrastructure to support those communities, especially in our most rural and impoverished sections of America. The demonstration program is limited, so that at least half of the title VI program authority will remain exclusively for housing.

Also, in order to be approved by the Secretary, an applicant must demonstrate that 70 percent of the benefit of the proposed projects will go to the low-income Indian families on Indian reservations and other tribal areas.

This is similar to the CDBG program which requires that 70 percent of a project's benefit be for low- and moderate-income families. Nothing in this amendment changes the use of appropriated funds, but it will encourage private money from banks or bond investors to be used for economic development purposes.

In June, I visited the Pueblo of Zuni, where it rained and snowed, leaving standing, muddy water throughout the community. Most of the streets in the historic plaza do not have gutters to control water runoff, nor do the roofs of most houses have the gutters. The water began to flow and residents were literally surrounding their homes with bath towels to absorb the melting snow and to prevent their homes from being flooded. This is an example where NAHASDA dollars should be eligible for infrastructure to help these low-income families build gutters in their neighborhoods and protect their homes.

My amendment will help Native Americans build stronger, better communities all across America by encouraging economic development. I believe this is the right step to help Indian Country build and improve their communities.

I hope that you will join me in supporting this important amendment.

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