Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the gentleman that on the issue of energy, Massachusetts has twice as many LNG facilities as Georgia. I would suggest he go back and do his part to help provide more energy for our country. I reserve my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. There is a difference between the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald, I should tell the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration's National Park Service has suggested that this is an appropriate designation. Maybe they were brainwashed, I don't know. But it is just sad that you have, on the other side, some on the other side, have tried to make this a political pawn in your election-year politics. This is really sad, and it's unfortunate, again, that the potential losers on this could be the hardworking people of Fall River and Somerset and the people along the Taunton River. This, to me, makes sense. Again, the Coast Guard has been emphatic in their opposition to this. I am interested. It's fascinating to see some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim they know more than the United States Coast Guard. But when it comes to navigational and safety matters, I trust them. But when it comes to designations, when it comes to parkland designations and wild and scenic designations and recreational designations, I am going to trust the Bush's administration's National Park Service more than some of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman briefly.

Mr. McGOVERN. If I may reclaim my time, the U.S. Navy, the Commerce Department and the Coast Guard said this particular site is unsuitable. Oh, and by the way, here is another photo, not an artist rendition. It looks like it might be an artist. It looks, again, very picturesque, like it could have been done in oil colors. But this is another photo of what we are trying to protect. Let me also say that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1969 does not discriminate between urban and rural. This bill is consistent with the law and recommended by the Bush administration's National Park Service.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode here. This doesn't make any sense. None of this makes any sense. First of all, I would say to the gentleman that we have just as many LNG facilities as you do in Louisiana. I would say to the gentleman that we are moving forward. We just licensed another LNG facility. I don't know what he's talking about. It doesn't make any sense to me when you talk about we are trying to frustrate our efforts. Let me also say to the gentleman, with regard to this particular site, the United States Navy opposed the LNG terminal in Fall River, as they indicated it would disrupt their operations in their nearby Newport, Rhode Island, base. The Commerce Department, Commerce Secretary Gutierrez ruled that Fall River would be an inappropriate site, citing the negative impacts on the flow of commerce along the waterway and environmental concerns. The United States Coast Guard. The Coast Guard. Now you may be an expert on navigational issues, but I trust the Coast Guard more than I trust you on these issues. The Coast Guard has rejected the LNG plant in Fall River three times. Captain Roy Nash, the head of the port of southeastern New England, found that the plan is ``unsuitable from a navigation safety perspective for the type, size and frequency of LNG marine traffic.'' So this site doesn't make any sense. So the State of Massachusetts said, but we want to do our part, so we have licensed another facility. So where are we frustrating attempts on energy?

Mr. McGOVERN. I would say first of all Massachusetts currently has two LNG terminals, and we have licensed another one. We are not opposed to LNG. We are doing our part.

Mr. McGOVERN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time. The gentleman obviously has not read the Coast Guard's recommendation on this issue. It is more than just about a bridge, and there are many bridges involved. Again, I would say to the gentleman that the debate is not about an LNG facility, it's about whether or not this area deserves the designation that we are debating here today. And I'm sorry, I understand it's a political year, it's an election year, and the people on the other side are just trying to make political points. It's just sad that they are doing so potentially at the expense of some good people in Fall River. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. This is a photograph.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. That picture is inaccurate. You are holding up a picture that is inaccurate. What we are looking at there is not what is covered by this designation.

Mr. McGOVERN. Would the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous speaker, and I am confused because he doesn't address what we are talking about here which is the designation of the Taunton River as having a wild and scenic designation. Again that photo that he held up, which my colleague from Washington State held up, which was a photo taken by a big moneyed special interest energy company, is inaccurate. I mean everything below the bridge seen in the middle of that picture is not covered by this bill. Here is if you take a picture from the other side which actually is the part that we are talking about being covered, it is a much, much different picture. It doesn't fit into the strategy of this special interest big moneyed energy company, but the reality is you see a much different picture of what we are trying to protect and what we are trying to preserve. If people want to have a debate on energy, fine. I would simply say Massachusetts is doing its part. We are actually moving forward on licensing more LNG facilities. We recognize the need to do our part. We are doing the right thing. The objection to this site for that LNG facility is that it is in the middle of a densely populated area that when these ships had to go down the Taunton River, three bridges needed to be shut down. The Coast Guard said it was a bad idea. I'm sorry you know more than the Coast Guard, about I trust the Coast Guard to tell me about navigational matters more than I do any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The U.S. Navy complained about it. The U.S. Department of Commerce said it didn't make any sense. So this is a smoke screen, and it really is an insult to the people who live in this area. These are hardworking people and they don't deserve to be a pawn in your political debate. So I would urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill and support the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. It is a photograph of the Taunton River. But the interesting thing about that photograph is the angle at which it has been taken. The fact of the matter is that this photograph that this big-moneyed energy company that my friend on the Republican side has held up is saying that this will be part of the, this area will be included in the designation which seeks to prove I think how inappropriate it has become because this industry has actually manipulated this photograph. But in fact much of that photograph is of a park. You will note in the picture a World War II battleship. That is the USS Massachusetts. And let me show you it is no part of any industrial use today. It's part of a recreational area. The battleship is the centerpiece of a very important urban park called the Heritage Park in the city of Fall River. And there is a great deal of open space that is shielded cleverly, very cleverly in that photograph that was paid for by a big-moneyed energy company. On the opposite side of that river are boat ramps and houses that go right to the river for recreational purposes. And it's part of my district. Now the gentleman maybe has a bias against providing working class people who live in urban areas any benefits from any kind of environmental designation. I disagree with him if that is his opinion. But he mentioned that the purpose of all of this was, in fact, to prevent an LNG site facility from being built in the middle of Fall River. Let me put this out there so my colleagues understand this. There are currently only eight LNG terminals in the United States of America. Of those eight, Massachusetts currently has two LNG terminals in operation with a third one that has been approved by FERC. Massachusetts is the only State to permit not one, but two new LNG import facilities this decade in this country. Each of these facilities is authorized to double its output capacity. I will yield after I finish my statement.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for has question. I don't recall Mr. Frank's remarks verbatim. I am happy to look at the transcript. I did not say that. Let me respond here. And maybe the gentleman didn't hear my opening statement. But the Taunton River is eligible for a wild and scenic designation. But also part of it is eligible based on ``recreational.'' That is the word that the Bush administration's National Park Service has said is appropriate. Now, I very rarely agree with the Bush administration on anything. And I'm sorry the gentleman disagrees with the Bush administration on this. But what I find particularly cynical is the photograph that the gentleman just held up which is the exact photograph that this big-moneyed energy company published as part of an ad in a number of newspapers.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1339.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. And I want to take my time to also rise in support of the Blunt amendment on Colombia. Mr. Speaker, I cannot describe the joy and the excitement that I felt on July 2 when I knew the rescue operation had been successful and that Mark Gonsalves, Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, Ingrid Betancourt and 11 Colombians were finally free after years of torment and brutality suffered at the hands of the FARC. I immediately wrote President Uribe congratulating him on the successful rescue. I also told President Uribe and members of the Colombian families that I remain committed to working for the release of the rest of the hostages. I would like to enter a copy of that letter into the Record. Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all my colleagues when I say that I want to see an end to the conflict in Colombia. I want to see the dismantling of all paramilitary, FARC, ELN, and other armed groups in Colombia. Clearly, this is in the best interests of the Colombian people as well as the United States. I want to see the Colombian military and security forces finally break their ties to armed groups, drug lords and criminals, and to fully respect the rights of all Colombian citizens. The Blunt amendment notes how intelligence and other cooperation by the United States contributed to weakening all of Colombia's illegal armed actors--the paramilitaries, the FARC and the ELN. It states that such assistance should continue to capitalize on recent successes. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more. According to an analysis by the Center for International Policy, what is most interesting about the hostage rescue operation and other recent successes is how different it is from what has failed in the past, namely, massive and expensive military offenses, fumigation, and racking up civilian body counts. The rescue highlights what has worked--the intelligence and cooperation that the gentleman from Missouri encourages us to continue: A greater intelligence focus aimed at the top leadership of the FARC and the captors of the hostages; A public relations campaign making it clear to the guerrilla rank- and-file that those who desert and who surrender to the government will not be tortured or disappear as in the past, but instead will get job training, a stipend, and the promise of a new life; And an increased presence by security forces in population centers and on main roads aimed at protecting civilians rather than treating them as suspects. Mr. Speaker, most interesting about these strategies is that, with the exception of the cost of increased manpower and protective presence, they are relatively inexpensive. These efforts, which have proven so effective, make up only a sliver of Colombia's defense budget and only a sliver of U.S. assistance. Planners of future aid packages to Colombia should take note. Intelligence and encouragement of desertion work--these relatively cheap but vastly improved capabilities made the bloodless rescue mission possible. It is hard to imagine the Colombian military of even just 2 years ago pulling off an operation like this, but today we celebrate the freedom of 15 Colombians and Americans. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter sent by Senator Richard Lugar to President Uribe urging him to seize this moment and open up negotiations with the FARC and the ELN to end the conflict and release the hundreds of Colombians who remain in captivity. Thus, indeed, will Colombia finally defeat the guerrillas and hopefully reunite the remaining hostages with their families and loved ones. I remain committed to this cause, and every Member of this Chamber should remain committed to this cause. Mr. Speaker, I have many, many deep concerns about the human rights situation in Colombia and some of the aid we send. But the Blunt amendment is not an endorsement of the ``same old, same old.'' It is a recognition of something that has worked. I urge all my colleagues to support the Blunt amendment, and I urge passage of this rule. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 2, 2008. Hon. Alvaro Uribe Velez, President, Republic of Colombia, Casa de Narino Bogota, Colombia. Dear President Uribe, I just want to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude for the successful operation that freed 15 of the hostages--eleven Colombians, Ingrid Betancourt, and the three Americans. No doubt like everyone watching the breaking news throughout this afternoon, I simply have no words to express what I'm feeling. I can only say thank you to you and to everyone who was involved in this very successful and intelligent ruse that resulted in freeing so many without a single shot fired or anyone injured. As always, I remain committed to working with you and with my counterparts in the international community to secure the freedom of the remaining Colombian captives. Sincerely, James P. McGovern, Member of Congress.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. No, I will not. They have frustrated efforts by the Democratic majority to try to support alternative renewable, clean sources of energy from solar, to wind, to fuel cell technology, to you name it, and they have been against it. The President has refused to heed the appeal by Democrats and by the Speaker of the House to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to provide the American people with immediate relief from these high gas prices. What we have gotten is the same old, same old. We have two oilmen in the White House, and we have policies being proposed by the other side of the aisle which is the same old same old. Give the oil companies whatever they want. You know what? The oil companies are wrong, and they're gouging the American taxpayer, and it's about time we had a Congress that stood up to them. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1343 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. 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.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that this is a good rule, and it deserves to be supported. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. I would say to my colleagues that what the gentleman from Washington just proposed on energy is yet another smoke screen by the Republicans in their effort to try to cover up their horrendous record on energy. They have been in control of this Congress. They were in control of the White House for years, and what we have seen are skyrocketing gas prices. They have done nothing to make us more energy independent.