Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. That is correct.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, the bottom line is we in Massachusetts realize the need for these LNG import facilities. And I would like to point out to the gentleman from Washington, and if my geography is correct, Washington is still a coastal State, unless that has changed, but that his State has no LNG terminal in operation, under construction, or even proposed. So when he implies that somehow the Massachusetts delegation is not stepping up to the plate in terms of making sure that not only New England but this Nation has energy, he is wrong. Massachusetts has been a leader on this. Let me point out one other thing. This is not a Republican-Democrat issue with regard to the LNG facility and the Fall River. Mitt Romney, who the last time I checked was a Republican, and still is a Republican, was a leading opponent in the siting of the LNG facility in the middle of Fall River. In 2006, Governor Romney stated, ``Weaver's Cove and Fall River strike me personally as being an ill-advised site to receive LNG.'' Realizing that they were trying to site an LNG facility in a highly populated area, Governor Romney asserted, ``I don't like the idea of an LNG facility going into a populated area, not in the post-9/11 world.'' 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. McGOVERN. I will show more pictures. I will be the last one speaking on this side.

Mr. McGOVERN. I'm happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I have great respect for the gentleman from Washington State. But listening to his remarks, it makes me sad that this Chamber, this Congress, has kind of disintegrated to a point where there seems to be no collegiality and no kind of honest debate about what the facts are here.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1339 provides for the consideration of H.R. 415, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This structured rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order four 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. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Two questions. One is how does LNG reduce the price of gasoline at the pump for the average citizen? And two, how many LNG facilities do you have in Georgia? I think it is one. We have two up and running in Massachusetts and a third one permitted, so don't lecture us about not doing our part in addressing the energy crisis.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I have spoken at length about this issue this morning, but this debate is absurd. I mean, we have people holding up pictures that aren't even the right picture. The picture that the gentleman from Georgia held up, I should tell him everything south of that bridge is not covered by this designation. This is fiction that is being brought to the floor today. The gentleman talks about LIHEAP. Yes, we do need emergency fuel assistance in New England. We have cold winters. But LNG doesn't translate into LIHEAP. And in terms of what we are doing to promote liquefied natural gas measures, we are doing much more than you are in Georgia. We have two facilities already up and running, and we have another one licensed. You know, Mr. Gingrey, help us out, do a little more in your State. Join in this cause to help us become more energy independent. Take your responsibility. We are doing it in Massachusetts. So please do not lecture us on the fact that we are not living up to our responsibility. We are. The bottom line is, as Mr. Frank pointed out, this is a debate about whether the hardworking people of Fall River and Somerset and other communities deserve to get this designation on the lower Taunton River. And they do. And it really is offensive to hear the way these people have been characterized, the way these hardworking citizens have been characterized. I am proud to represent Fall River along with Congressman Frank. These are good people and they don't deserve this and this bill, quite frankly, should not be subject to petty politics, and that is what is happening here.

Mr. McGOVERN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to have a course in basic energy policy here so my colleagues know the difference between liquefied natural gas and the gasoline you put in your automobile and the oil people use to heat their homes. I mean, listening to this debate here, it seems like you have no clue about the energy that our country relies on. So let's get our facts straight here. Let's stop the fiction and let's do the right thing. Let's pass this bill. The people of Fall River deserve it.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, this debate has been, to say the least, strange. My friends on the other side of the aisle have come to the floor with pictures of the Taunton River that are not even part of the designation that we're talking about. They have said that this is about LNG and that Massachusetts doesn't want to do its fair share. Yet we have three LNG facilities up and running, and a third that has already been permitted. They have confused their energies. They don't know the difference between liquefied natural gas, oil and the gasoline you put in your automobile. I mean their ignorance on energy is stunning. No wonder why they lost the last election. And finally, they have tried to make political points at the expense of the constituents that I represent and that Barney represents. As Barney said, these are hardworking people. The tone of this debate and the way my constituents have been characterized is insulting. It's a new low even for some of the people on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just say that the Bush administration's National Park Service says that this is a good idea. It was good enough for them. It should be good enough for you. Defeat this motion and vote for the bill. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this fall, the rising cost of food will be felt by schools from Massachusetts to Hawaii, an impact that will severely strain the budgets of school districts across this great land. Today, Chairman George Miller and the Education and Labor Committee will hold a hearing on the rising cost of food and the impact on the school meal programs. Sadly, healthier food choices may be scrapped for cheaper, less nutritious food. After-school meal programs may be scaled back or eliminated. Our kids will pay the price. There is no easy answer to this problem, but we can all agree that we cannot let this food price crisis result in our school-aged children going without food simply because school districts are struggling with these rising prices. I commend Chairman Miller for holding this hearing, and I look forward to working with him on this important issue.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Colonel Timothy E. Higgens of North Attleboro, Massachusetts on his retirement from military service on July 7, 2008 and to recognize his exemplary 35 years of service to his country. Over his career, Col. Higgens has distinguished himself through his exceptional service and leadership skills while successfully completing a range of assignments. Col. Higgens was educated at the United States Military Academy at West Point in New York, where he received his B.S. in Engineering. He later went on to earn his M.A. in Counseling from Ball State University in Indiana. Throughout this military career, he has maintained his civilian occupation as a Quality Assurance Engineer. Col. Higgens began his distinguished military career on June 1, 1973. He served for five years on active duty and then went on to serve the balance of his career in the Army Reserves. He has completed the United States Army Ranger School, the United States Army Airborne School and the United States Army Infantry School. Col. Higgens has held numerous training, operations and command assignments, and his dedication and outstanding credentials culminated with his most recent assignment to an integral homeland security mission. From July 2004 until July 2008, Col. Higgens served as the Chief Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer for New England. In this position, he was the primary leader among a team of senior officers from the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard representing the six New England states. Over the last four years, Col. Higgens led the team's deployment in multiple exercises and real life events. The skillful leadership and the many contributions made by Col. Higgens have undoubtedly strengthened homeland defense. Throughout his military career, Col. Higgens has been supported by his loving wife, Evelyn, and his two sons, Ryan and Eric. Now, as he begins his retirement from military service, he plans to spend more time enjoying his favorite hobby of mountain biking. Madam Speaker, in this time of international conflict, we must take the time to recognize the courageous sacrifices and innumerable contributions of men and women like Col. Higgens who have dedicated their lives to serving our country. Their commitment reflects the best examples of love of country and we are infinitely grateful for all they do. I humbly ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Col. Timothy E. Higgens on his retirement from military service.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I would like to reserve the remaining time to the coauthor of this amendment, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota and the gentleman from Florida for their hard work on this important legislation. I am offering an amendment, along with my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Davis). He has been a very important collaborator in this effort. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Davis-McGovern amendment. Like the underlying legislation, the purpose of this amendment is to reduce energy consumption by promoting public transportation. This amendment seeks to equalize the current transportation fringe benefit offered to Federal employees who commute to work via public transportation with the current benefit for those who drive to work by themselves. Currently, $220 per month in pretax benefits can be offered to Federal employees who drive to work and pay for parking, while these who opt to take a train, bus, or other form of public transit are only eligible for $115 a month. This disparity has had the reverse effect of what the transportation fringe benefit was geared to do, and that is to take commuters out of their personal automobiles by incentivizing them to use public transportation. Madam Chairman, this bipartisan amendment will do much more than get people to use public transportation. With fewer people driving to work, less gasoline is consumed, less wear and tear is done to our roads and bridges, and less emissions are released into the air. As Congress seeks ways to combat climate change and become energy independent, one of the best ways to make an immediate impact is by offering cleaner, greener commuting options for our workforce. According to the current estimates, Americans save $340 million a year in fuel costs as a result of the transit benefit. Increasing the transit benefit will result in a corresponding increase in that savings. As we look for ways to provide relief from skyrocketing fuel prices, the transit benefit is a proven part of the solution. I ask my colleagues to support the Davis-McGovern amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield our remaining time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the President's veto of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, otherwise known as the Farm Bill. I am pleased to say that, with this vote, we have finally put this legislation behind us. While I regret the problems that occurred with the formal parchment and the missing Trade Title of the Farm Bill, the time between consideration of the first veto override vote and this one allowed many Members of Congress time to read the floor statements of many of our distinguished colleagues and understand better this large, complex and important piece of legislation. I am particularly grateful that the distinguished Members from California, Mr. Baca and Mr. Berman, clarified several particularly important provisions in the Nutrition Title of the bill. I would like to fully associate myself with their remarks. Following those Members' lead, I will not waste my colleagues' time by restating points they previously made on this legislation. I want to emphasize, however, that if ever there was any doubt about Congress's continued support for the availability of judicial recourse for violations of food assistance statutes and regulations, this legislation makes that support unmistakably clear. The Food Stamp Act long has explicitly recognized the right of prospective applicants, actual applicants, and recipients to go to court to secure compliance with the statute and regulations. No court needs to guess about the view of Congress on this matter. This new legislation reiterates that Congress will regulate how such litigation takes place. But there can be no question that litigation should, in fact, be permitted to occur if necessary. Such suits historically have not been required to pass any special hurdles of procedure or proof; all that matters is whether the statute, regulations, or state plan has been violated. If such a violation has occurred, the courts can pursue correction in the most efficacious manner, provided that we have limited the availability of retroactive benefits to one year before the problem was or should have been discovered. Rules developed under statutes where congressional intent is unclear have no place under food assistance legislation where we have left no room for doubt about our intentions. As my colleagues from California made clear, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act properly rejects two recent cases where courts, no doubt with the best of intentions, strayed from this long-time principle in the Food Stamp Program. This legislation clarifies that states are accountable for the results they achieve, namely a well-run food assistance program, and may be held judicially accountable for that. I trust this will eliminate any doubts other courts might have this score. As Members are aware, the Farm Bill conferees did not accept a House provision that would have shut down all efforts to expand private contractors' role in administering the Food Stamp Program. Serious concerns have been raised about initiatives in a couple of states. Part of the reasoning was that the statute already contains requirements that state civil servants make all decisions relating to a household's participation in the program. As of yet, the policies of those states have not been tested in court. Without in any way seeking to prejudge what the results of such litigation might be, a judicial ruling on how these practices measure up against existing law would be of great help to us in determining whether that law needs to be modified, whether in the manner the House suggested or otherwise. As I understand there is considerable dissatisfaction with these programs, and I hope that the steps we are taking to clarify households' right to challenge the administration of the program in court will allow those concerns to be raised and addressed without further delay.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will oppose the underlying FISA bill. Yes, this represents a compromise. It is better than what President Bush first proposed. But, that's not good enough. That's not a high enough standard. I want to remind my colleagues that what we are debating today is something very serious. We are talking about our most basic civil liberties and civil rights. And when it comes to those issues and principles we must be very, very careful. This compromise still provides immunity for telecom companies that may have participated in President Bush's illegal surveillance program and it fails to adequately protect the privacy rights of law abiding, innocent American citizens. Furthermore, the bill has a four year sunset provision which, in my view, is much too long. I know that we live in a dangerous world. I am well aware that there are some who want to do us harm. It is for that reason I understand the need to update our laws to better protect our people. I continue to believe that we can do that--without turning our backs on the values and principles that make America unique and great. This bill goes too far. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the chairwoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the rule allows for the supplemental to be considered in two parts. Part 1 is funding for the war and Iraq, and part 2 includes expanded benefits for GI education, expanded unemployment compensation, disaster relief, food aid, and other measures. I want to begin also, Mr. Speaker, by thanking Chairman Obey for his incredible leadership in trying to forge a decent and fair compromise. He has more patience than I. Mr. Speaker, let me start with talking about amendment No. 2. I strongly support the measures contained in this amendment. It expands the GI benefits for the education of our veterans, including those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and extends them more equitably for all of our service branches, including the Guard and Reserves. The amendment also extends unemployment benefits by up to 13 weeks in every State for workers who have exhausted their benefits. It places a moratorium on six Medicaid regulations, the costs of which are fully offset. It provides emergency funding to meet critical needs, especially in addressing the global food crisis and disaster and refugee assistance. It includes many other measures, Mr. Speaker, that are worth supporting, that are important, that are vital, and so I urge all my colleagues to support amendment No. 2. Let me now just say a few words about funding for the war in Iraq, Mr. Speaker. Under amendment No. 1, funding for the Iraq war is provided without conditions, a blank check, with no requirements about how or when we might begin removing our military forces from Iraq or prohibiting the Bush administration from moving forward with a Status of Forces Agreement that could tie the hands of the next administration to design a new policy and a new future with Iraq. Mr. Speaker, how can anyone in this Chamber give this President another blank check for the war in Iraq? This is the same President who rushed us into war under false pretenses. There were no weapons of mass destruction and no ties to al Qaeda. Everything he and his administration have told us has been wrong. Where is the accountability? For me, this is one compromise too many. It represents one cave-in too many. It asks Congress to roll over and be blind to the consequences of the war for the next 9 months or so. Five years after the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration continues the occupation of Iraq with no end in sight. More than 4,500 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, and over 30,000 Americans wounded. It is long past time for a change in course, and this bill does absolutely nothing to bring that about. This is George Bush's war, and he should end it while he is still President. I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to oppose this amendment, amendment No. 1, and demand that this President and his administration begin the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.