Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. That is my understanding.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the courtesies, real or unreal, that have been granted to this point so far. If you go back to the movie The Natural, there is a wonderful scene where this mythical team, the New York Knights, are on a losing tradition, so they bring a sports psychologist down to try and talk to the team. And as the sports psychologist is droning on to them, he says, ``You know, men, the mind is a strange thing. What is losing? Losing is a disease as contagious as the bubonic plague, attacking one but infecting all. And consider yourself, if you are on a ship at sea gently rocking, gently rocking.'' And at that point, Roy Hobbs can't take it anymore, so he bolts out of there because he realizes that if you are in a losing situation, talking about it doesn't help, only action on the field of play will help. And when given the chance to go on the field and play, he pounded the ball and led them to victory after victory after victory. And what we are talking about simply here tonight is what Americans want, which is for us to do something here on this playing field on the issue of energy and energy security. We are fighting for the people of my district who will be faced with a 30 percent increase in heating costs this winter. We are fighting for the 1,100 people who lost their jobs with an airline because 100 planes were not able to be provided the fuel to fly. We are flying for an Ethiopian-born cab driver here in Washington, D.C. who, for the first time in his life since coming here, he cannot meet his kids at home because he has to drive two extra hours every night just to make up what he loses in these fees. We are fighting for a father in Virginia who can no longer go to his father-and-son outings because he can't afford the gasoline to drive there. We are talking about the Clark County School District which had an unexpected 62 percent of its budget all related to energy costs, and that all comes out of future salaries of the teachers of those poor areas. If you are rich, this problem is simply an annoyance. Only 11 cents out of $1 goes to energy. But if you are on the poverty line, 50 cents of every dollar goes to energy. And that 50 cents that comes out of the pocket of a poor person or somebody on a fixed income is money that cannot be spent on luxuries like tuna casseroles or Hamburger Helper. We are a country that has the technology and the ability to solve this problem. We are a country with a proud history of solving our problems with technology. Since 1784 when we invented the bifocals, to 1867 when we changed the world by inventing the typewriter and changed the West by inventing barbed wire and changed our lives by inventing toilet paper in the same year, to 1945 with the microwave, to even soft contacts today. We have had the technology to be able to solve this energy problem. And before us is an amendment which will reward Americans for their efforts of conservation in a way that we have not done in a long time. It will increase production of our energy sources by recognizing that not only do we have to have the fossil fuels increased, but all the royalties that we will now make by increased production in oil and gas and oil shale and coal will be used to fund the improvements and the innovations and the research for alternative energy so that we can look forward to the future. We recognize that we have to do something with our infrastructure. We do not have the refinery capacity that we need. We recognize that Washington is not the seat of all wisdom, that bringing an expert into a room here is not going to solve our problems; but what we need to do is unlock the brilliance within Americans and within what they have to offer to the American people. By offering prizes, we can find solutions that have been plaguing and missing us for years. In 1714, the British didn't have a way of mapping their waters in the navigation, so they offered a $20,000 prize and a clock maker came up with the system of longitude and latitude that we still use today. In 1810, Napoleon needed a way to feed his troops. He gave a 12,000 franc prize to find somebody to use the vacuum-packed processes we still use today. Lindbergh flew across the ocean to get a prize from a newspaper, and it spawned a $32 billion industry. We have that capability today. We have the Roy Hobbs who realizes that the only way you solve the problem is get on the playing field and do it. We have the ability to solve our problem today if we just come to this playing field and do it, and to require a vote on this amendment so that we can fulfill the words of Daniel Webster that are looking at us every day we come here to inspire us, to tell us to take our resources and to build from that, and to do something that is worthy to be remembered. This amendment would be worthy to be remembered, and I urge that we accept this amendment and I urge that we have a vote on this amendment. This may be the only chance we actually have to have an up or down vote on this particular amendment, which impacts the lives of everybody but especially the most vulnerable in our society. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I don't know that one.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It was our understanding as I was waiting for the proper time to offer this amendment that the body would take the two colloquies first, and then we would have the opportunity of presenting this in this form. So I think actually going through this form in the long run was probably more timesaving than doing other kinds of actions if this was not allowed.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to offer the amendment of Mr. Boehner, the minority leader, at this point in the reading.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, consistent with House Republican Earmark Standards adopted by House Republicans, I am submitting the following earmark disclosure and certification information for an individual project appropriations request that I made and which was included within the text of H.R. 6599, the ``Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009.'' Requesting Member: Rob Bishop (UT-01) Bill Number: H.R. 6599--``Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009'' 1 project was included at my request which qualifies as an earmark under Republican Conference guidelines, as follows: 1. Project: Three-Bay Fire Station, Military Construction Project Amount: $5.67 million Account: Air Force, Military Construction (MILCON) Requesting Entity: Congressman Rob Bishop Receiving Entity: Hill Air Force Base; Air Force Materiel Command Address: 75th Air Base Wing, Hill AFB, Utah 84056. Project Description and Justification: Construction of new, 3-bay fire station next to the main runway is necessary to correct for violation of Air Force fire protection regulations regarding response times. New facility is necessary to provide adequate fire protection for aircraft, as well as industrial operations on East side of runway in support of vital national defense missions. This project was already approved in the Air Force's Five-Year Defense Plan as being necessary to meet military safety requirements. MILCON projects are inherently necessary as having been requested and reviewed by the applicable military service in the first instance. Congress merely readjusts prioritization of project funds in any given fiscal year based on showing of emerging or critical needs. Matching Funds: Not applicable (Federal entity). Detailed Spending Plan: $5.67 million in appropriated dollars will be expended by Hill Air Force Base Civil Engineer Division pursuant to existing Military Construction statutes and regulations under an open bidding competitive process with the private sector, for the construction of a 3-bay Fire Station complex. Additional questions regarding this project may be addressed to: U.S. Air Force, Hill Air Force Base Public Affairs Office (801) 777-5201.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate once again the discussion that we have had here today. The gentleman from Massachusetts, who is the chairman of a very important committee, does a great job, charming, witty, one of the funniest Members we have in Congress, actually said what my close was going to be. Someone once asked me, why do I care about this? I'm from Utah. I don't care about this river in Massachusetts. And you're right. I really don't. I didn't get involved in this issue by choice. The gentleman introduced a bill that had to come to my committee. But the reason that I do care is because exactly what the gentleman from Massachusetts said. We are attempting, in a vote, by a majority vote, to change the definition of law. When I was in college, I had a professor that told me that all those men that went to the Constitutional Convention had baggage that they took, which meant they had a common educational, classic educational system. They understood what they were talking about. They went back to the concepts of Aristotle, who loved to make 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. BISHOP of Utah. I will be happy to close when you are ready.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Massachusetts, his views may have evolved. The law has not. We are a nation of laws, not what we wish it to be, but what the law is. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate that. And to be honest, I anticipated going first in the closing of this, so the gentleman from Massachusetts could have had the last word. So I will try and be kind with that. But to be very honest with you, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't matter how many property owners may or may not object to it. Under our constitutional system of laws, if there are three people with property rights, they must be respected. It doesn't matter how many dislike it. They must be respected. The gentleman has very nice people in his district. I am positive. Look who they elected. But that is not the issue. The issue is the language of the law. The language in section 16 talks about free- flowing rivers, natural waterways, existing and flowing in a natural condition. There should not be low dams, diversion works or other minor structures at the time the river is proposed. This ain't minor structures. This is a large urban development. It does not meet the definition of those terms. We say it over and over again. It is not the House that is denying the constituents the right to have this designation. The State of Massachusetts could do the same thing if you just used local ordinances and State authority. It is not the House that will be denying them. It is the law that denies them. It is the law that does not allow this lower river to meet definition of wild and scenic rivers. Period. Pass the amendment, and I can easily and happily support the bill because if you pass the amendment, the parts that do qualify as wild and scenic rivers will be included as wild and scenic rivers, and the parts that do not qualify will be exempt. I yield back.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am prepared to close whenever the gentleman from Massachusetts is.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Once again, I appreciate the discussion we have had on this bill. I think that is perfunctory. We have to say that. But let's once again make common the facts of this particular bill. The Department, the National Park Service, has not supported this bill. They have asked that we refrain from it until the study is final. They have also, though, in that study, given options, three different options of what to do with this river. This bill happens to take the worst of the options, an option that has no precedent, an option that is problematic. My amendment makes this a legitimate bill. The area to which I object, the area that does not meet the standards of a wild and scenic river, those areas I am asking to be removed. The Upper Taunton River, that is the area this Congress, in the Year 2000, mandated the study and paid for a study, and that what the study should have done, has those wild and scenic qualifications that match the law. That is my amendment, to remove the offending sections of this bill and limit just to those which meet the meaning of the words in the law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me continue to reserve until we are done.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Once again I appreciate the comments from the gentleman, and I would like once again to try and focus on what is indeed the issue. The State of Rhode Island, the State of Massachusetts do, indeed, have coastal zone management acts in which they get Federal money to help maintain the quality of their coastal zones and rivers. The fact that they are cool rivers running in urban areas is wonderful. You can do it, it's great, but not under the definition of this act. When the gentleman from Rhode Island says you want to put it back to the way it were, it disqualifies it from the concept of preservation of existing facilities and preservation of existing embankments. That's why you have struck too far when you go into the lower Taunton River. Mr. Chairman, I have letters in opposition to this bill from the Shipbuilders Council of America, as well as from three companies who actually do business on the lower Taunton River who are worried about the kind of economic disadvantage they may be facing that I would like to be placed in the Record. Shipbuilders Council of America, Washington, DC, October 29, 2007. Hon. Bob Bishop, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Natural Resources Committee, 1329 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Grijalva: I am writing to express the opposition of the Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA) to H.R. 415, legislation to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) to designate segments of the Taunton River as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Specifically, SCA is strongly opposed to the inclusion under the WRSA of the Lower Taunton River (Segment 4). The Lower Taunton River does not meet designation criteria for inclusion in the WSRA. The WSRA requires that a river be ``free flowing'' defined as ``existing or flowing in a natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modifications of the waterway''. There is today significant industrialization along Segment 4 of the Taunton River including bridges, a power plant, sewage plants, marinas and shipyards, and granite bulkheads. In addition, this portion of the Taunton has been federally dredged for more than 125 years. The SCA does not oppose designation under the WSRA of the upper portions of the Taunton River. However, inclusion of the Lower Taunton will harm existing businesses and jeopardize crucial industrial jobs. SCA is the national association representing U.S. commercial shipyards. SCA represents approximately 40 shipyard companies that own and operate more than 100 shipyards on all three U.S. coasts, the Great Lakes and Hawaii. SCA member yards employ more than 30,000 shipyard workers. Our companies build, repair and maintain America's commercial fleet as well as small and mid-sized vessels for the U.S. military and other government agencies. SCA member yards also repair and maintain Navy combatant ships. Sincerely, Allen Walker, President.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate once again the comments that have been made here. I appreciate the defense of constituencies. I appreciate that there is a difference between gasoline that goes in a car and gasoline that heats a home, and LIHEAP does deal with gas that does heat homes. But once again, the issue is not the same. I want to focus on the issue. The beautiful picture you had here of the park does not qualify for the purpose of a wild and scenic river designation. That is why under the law, you are supposed to take a quarter mile on either side of the river and stop everything from that area. It is already developed. Development does not qualify even under the concept of recreation under the letter of the law. This bill is bad because the study itself violated the law. Congress told the National Park Service to study the upper river and paid for a study of the upper river which has legitimate merits to it, and instead they studied the lower river in violation of the congressional directive. Once they wrote their report, they still said it was problematic. There is no precedent for the lower river. It is still the problem of the details of what the river is supposed to be. The department still recommends not doing this. The National Park Service recommends not doing this until the entire study has been totally completed. So once again we are back to this issue of what does it mean to have a wild and scenic designation? The upper Taunton River has those qualities. The lower Taunton River does not because the purpose is for preservation, not for economic development, not for creating more urban parks, not for changing the landscape on the sides. It is for the purpose of preserving a river in its native state. That was the purpose of, and that is the intent, and there has never been a proposal to this date that is this far afield from the purpose of the 1968 act. Never. That is why there is no precedent ever for this type of action. That's why this bill should not go forward. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate very much the gentleman from Massachusetts standing up to defend his constituency. It is the right thing to do. It is the proper thing for him to do. It is his job and purpose. But once again, I want him to focus in on the reality of the situation, which is not the quality of the individuals in Massachusetts. It is simply the issue at hand. This, by the way, is that same battleship--assuming there should be a battleship in a wild and scenic river zone--this is the same battleship from the other angle which is decidedly less pristine and much more urbanized. But the issue at hand that the gentlemen on the other side need to deal with is that the purpose of the act is for preservation, not rehabilitation, not for economic development, which are the very words that were just used. That is not what the Wild and Scenic River Act was ever intended to do. And that is what is going to be done in this particular bill. That is why we are abusing the vocabulary of the Wild and Scenic River Act. And we must focus back in on what we are doing. Indeed, the proposed LNG port is in an existing brownfield, zoned for maritime industrial use. But the issue is for what purpose are the verbs and the nouns in the Wild and Scenic River Act supposed to be implied? And does it apply to the lower Taunton? And the answer is simply ``no.'' It doesn't meet the definition. With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, unless, Mr. Chairman, you would like us to reserve and then come back.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If this body were a debating society or we were involved in a high school forensics tournament and this bill were the topic of the tournament, I would be giddy with happiness every time one of my teams was given the negative side of the debate because there are so many reasons why this bill is a bad bill for policy reasons that it would almost be a rhetorical feast for even the most inexperienced and naive of my high school debaters. Let me at least start by addressing three of the main problems with this particular bill. First, this bill is very clearly an abuse of the Wild and Scenic River language. In 1968 when this bill was passed, its purpose was to inhibit dams and locks along rivers so that there could be a free flow of water on rustic rivers. The verb used in that act was ``preservation.'' The goal and purpose was preservation. Not rehabilitation, not restoration, certainly not economic advantage or economic development, but simply preservation. There are some elements of this particular river which have the qualities of a wild and scenic river, specifically the upper parts of the Taunton River. But the lower parts of the Taunton River, what is sometimes called segment 4, are the elements of this river which provide major problems. They are not and do not have the qualities of a wild and scenic river. You've seen the pictures before. All you need to do is look at the pictures and you recognize this is not the design of a wild and scenic river as envisioned in the 1968 legislation. In fact, the only part of this river that's scenic is the graffiti that's found on the bridges and the human embankments that are part of this river system. The only thing that's wild about this river are the gangs that wrote this graffiti in the first place. These are not the qualities of which we are looking for. In fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if you are floating down this river, it is not a wild and scenic if you can look over and see the local McDonald's right there on the bank. What we also have is the understanding that this lower portion is supposed to be for recreation. We could believe it would be for recreation if you believe that tugboat races or barge surfing would be considered recreational activities. This is not the kind of material that one would want to find floating in a river for Boy Scout troops to try to paddle their canoes around or by. This bill simply violates the concept of the wild and scenic river. The wild and scenic river was never intended to go through an industrial park. It was always intended to be water that was surrounded by public lands so that you could control and preserve both the water and the embankment of those public lands, not something that goes through a privatized residential/industrial park. Also, if you look at section 1 of the act that it specifically talks not only about preservation of the water but the embankment as well, that actually in a real wild and scenic river, the National Park Service is required to take the embankment as well up to a quarter of a mile away and put that aside. Obviously, you can't do this because there is no public land on this lower Taunton River, although the National Park Service does have eminent domain power; so if you really wanted to create a true wild and scenic river, we could probably accomplish that deal if that was really what you are after. This bill provides economic advantages to some elements but not to others. In 2002 the sponsor and other members of the Massachusetts delegation received an earmark to try to dredge this river, a fact which should disqualify it within the National Park Service criteria in the first place. Yet what it does now when we want to make this a wild and scenic river is simply take the law and turn it on its head. This bill gives current businesses disadvantages and some current businesses advantages, as is clearly illustrated in the newspaper articles that are coming from this area already where people are wanting to know what we do to see how it impacts, positively or negatively, their business operation. And that was never, never, never the intent of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Secondly, this is simply an abuse of the system, an abuse of power. In the year 2000, this Congress authorized a study of the Taunton River, the upper Taunton River. The authorization was for the upper Taunton River. The appropriation was to study the upper Taunton River. And yet mysteriously the National Park Service, a system that has millions of dollars of backlog, a system that has 37 studies still in backlog for Wild and Scenic River projects, a system that is always talking about how pressed they are for cash, volunteered in actual disregard to the legislative direction and legislative intent to study something never intended to be studied, never directed to be studied, and spent roughly $400,000 to do it, in total violation to the aspect of Congress and the requirements of Congress. One low-level employee within the National Park Service felt in some way compelled to violate Federal law to study the wrong part of the river and to spend money illegally to study the wrong part of the river and then in his report had the audacity to say, well, this would be the most developed river we would ever have in this kind of status. When asked why he did that, his response was very simple to us in committee: He did what the river would choose to do if it could speak. 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.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I think the other side of the aisle will be happy to know that this amendment does nothing to prevent a proposed LNG port in the Taunton River. The legislation does, but the amendment does not. I'm not really sure exactly what the amendment does. About the most you can say is it doesn't appear to do anything negative, and for that purpose I will be happy to support this amendment, because at least it recognizes that energy is important, and that's an excellent first step. A curious one, I admit, but an excellent first step, especially if it's accepted by those who are supporting the underlying legislation without the first Bishop amendment to be added to it. It is curious also to understand what domestically produced energy source will come in this particular area unless maybe you actually do have the Park Service use their eminent domain power and actually condemn all of the land a quarter mile from either side of the river in the way a real wild and scenic river should be done. But let's see what happens. An LNG port, if it was actually produced there, would be able within 3 years, according to best estimates, to reduce the amount of energy needs for the people that live in this area by 10 percent or more, just from this one port. But the issue at hand is not domestically produced energy because an LNG port does not bring in domestically produced energy. It's all coming from abroad. 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. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Just as in 2002, the Massachusetts delegation asked and received an appropriation to dredge this river in the effort to help some economic businesses and not necessarily others. The fact that it was dredgeable and that it was dredged, I am sorry. I don't know if it was actually done, but the fact that it was eligible for dredging ignores the area and the criteria that is necessary even for recreational purposes in the wild and scenic designation. There are significant problems with this type of approach, not represented by us but represented by the Park Service. There are problems, as we have talked about, the denial for the permit for an LNG port that was supposedly done by Commerce, supposedly done by the Coast Guard, and the other group to which the gentleman mentioned, those were not permanent denials. Those were temporary denials. In fact, each of them said that they could be reinstituted and reapproached. It is very possible to reinstitute another proposal for a LNG port at this site, unless this bill is passed. Now, that is the reality of what is going on here. It is far different than some of the spin that we have been hearing. But this is a problematic approach.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I had intended to obviously reserve my comments till the bill itself this afternoon, but after listening to the debate on the rule I felt somewhat compelled to say a few things about it. Earlier this morning in the 1-minutes, one of the members of the Massachusetts delegation came to the floor and spoke about the significant problem of heating that will be taking place in the State of Massachusetts. He said that there were 350,000 people of Massachusetts that needed LIHEAP. That is subsidization for heating energy that all of us in the United States pay for the citizens of his State, and there would be more this fall. In fact, he said heat is not optional. It is something that has to be there. Certainly this action right now does not help that problem. It retards our efforts to try and come up with it. I am also somewhat confused as we are talking about this proposal. It is very clear that this proposal to study this river had certain sections. We are only talking here so far about segment 4; the lower part of the Taunton River, which, for the first time, has been designated as a potential wild and scenic river site. I will say though that when the Park Service presented their information, they did not come up with a recommendation; they came up with three recommendations. Only recommendation B is the one that has decided to be included in this particular bill, the so-called environmental recommendation. But I want you to know in the recommendation in which they said this particular recommendation is easily for a river that is the most developed of any that has ever been submitted for this kind of designation, and that would be problematic, and there is no precedent, no precedent for this kind of area to be included in a wild and scenic designation, although it does meet political expectations of the area. Now, there are other options that we could take, and there will be an amendment put on this floor to do this the right way, by taking the area that in 2000 was designated for study and appropriated for study and putting that which does have wild and scenic designation and characteristics into existence. But not this lower portion. In fact, there is another article that appeared yesterday in the Massachusetts paper which simply said, scenic designation could sink riverfront businesses. Indeed, what we are trying to do here is an effort that will aid some businesses but harm other businesses.