Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Worcester Women's History Project. During their 10 years of exceptional service, the Worcester Women's History Project has raised awareness of the important and vital role of women in the history of Worcester and our Nation. The Worcester Women's History Project, since its creation in 1994, has raised awareness of the importance of Worcester, site of the first National Woman's Rights Convention in 1850. In conjunction with that goal, the Worcester Women's History Foundation has educated the local community on the rich history of women and their courage in organizing against oppression and slavery. The WWHP is devoted to ensuring the recognition and incorporation of women's contributions to the historical record. Dedication to the discovery of connections between past and present--for the benefit of the future--is displayed in the scholarships and workshops that the WWHP continuously supports and funds. The Project is particularly committed to spreading awareness concerning Worcester's central role in the history of the women's rights movement, and remains devoted to the ideal put forth in the 1850 Convention that there should be ``equality under the law, without distinction of sex or color'' or ethnicity. The Worcester Women's History Project works to reveal the past in order to ensure a brighter future for all. They believe that acknowledging women's contributions is fundamental to the growth and education of the Worcester community and the Nation at large. I am grateful to the WWHP for their contribution to my community and ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this exemplary organization.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). (Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda). (Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration's record on manufacturing is abysmal: 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2001, including 24,000 this year alone. It is clear that they either do not know or do not care about the disappearing manufacturing sector of our economy. For example, last year the administration requested $39 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, a severe reduction over the previous year. Fortunately, the Congress provided $106 million for this important program. However, the administration was not done in their attempts to kill this program. They opposed efforts to extend the MEP in last year's version of the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. As if that were not bad enough, Mr. Speaker, this year's $46.8 million budget request would again have decimated the MEP and punished the small business manufacturers the Republican leadership claims they want to help. Fortunately, the bill before us today fully authorizes the MEP. Mr. Speaker, let me give you just one MEP success story. In my district, Chase Leather Products of Fall River, Massachusetts, has been manufacturing high-quality leather and synthetic fabric products for nearly a century. Faced with a 25 percent reduction in business over the past several years, Chase turned to the Massachusetts MEP for help. After training Chase's personnel in lean manufacturing techniques, such as value stream mapping and revising the plant layout, Chase was able to deliver 100 percent on-time delivery to their customers. This improved performance has caused one of Chase's customers, Motorola, to move a $2 million-plus contract back from India to Massachusetts. Small improvements in technology helped this company not only make a better product but a better economy for the Fall River community. Like other State MEPs, the Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program is supported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Department of Commerce and the State of Massachusetts to help small and medium-sized manufacturers identify and implement advanced manufacturing and management technologies. Through a network of resources, the MEP links client firms with local and national sources of expertise to address specific problems. By 2004, the MEP program in Massachusetts had created or retained 2,224 jobs that paid a total of $116.4 million of wages and benefits, increased economic output worth $365.1 million, and generated or retained over $46.8 million in additional tax and nontax revenues at the Federal, State and local levels. There are success stories like this all over the country. But the Bush administration and the Republican leadership refuse to recognize them. Simply, Mr. Speaker, we are not doing what it takes to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States, and part of the problem is that the Bush administration continually drags its feet. Earlier investments in technology, manufacturing, and education have made the United States economy the strongest in the world. We must continue investing in these important efforts. With 87,200 manufacturing jobs lost in Massachusetts, 349,000 lost in California, 67,000 lost in Georgia, we cannot continue to sit on our hands. We must make the necessary investments. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) have come together to produce the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. It includes the reauthorization of the MEP as well as other important job creation programs. They have fashioned, mostly, a good bill. However, I am extremely disappointed that this bill does not include the reauthorization of the Advanced Technology Program, a program that is widely supported. And I am disappointed that this rule does not make the Honda amendment in order. The Honda amendment would reauthorize the Advanced Technology Program, and it deserves an up-or-down vote in this House. If it were allowed, I believe it would pass. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because we have been denied an up-or-down vote on this important issue, and we have not been given a good reason why we cannot have an up-or-down vote on this important issue, I would urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote ``no'' on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Let me close by again urging all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. The Committee on Rules used to be a tool to manage debate. It is now used as a weapon to stifle debate. There is no excuse whatsoever why the gentleman from California's (Mr. Honda) amendment was not made in order, and no one on the other side has been able to even defend the omission of the gentleman from California's (Mr. Honda) amendment. Yesterday, when Democrats balked at an amendment to the Head Start reauthorization bill that would allow religious institutions to discriminate, the other side, the Republicans, said, no, well, let the House work its will; that is what the House of Representatives is there for. Why is it okay for the House to work its will on that amendment, but not on the gentleman from California's (Mr. Honda) amendment? The fact of the matter is this economy under Bush has performed abysmally when it has come to manufacturing. We have lost millions and millions and millions of jobs. We need to do more. The administration needs to do more, but Congress needs to do more as well. Another 7,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in May. The manufacturing sector in this country continues to suffer. They do not want reauthorization bills with new programs that are not funded. They want us to actually put our money where our rhetoric is. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just again say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), whom I have great respect for, I repeat my claim that this administration has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting manufacturing jobs: 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2001. And that number continues to grow. So they do have an abysmal record. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) mentioned all of these wonderful new programs that are going to be authorized in this bill. And it is nice to be able to say all of those things, because we all like to talk about all of these great new programs. But it is important to note that all of these new programs you talk about, none of them are appropriated. So if they are not appropriated, they are not real. And I would also say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) that, again, I was hoping that he would answer the question as to why the advanced technology program was cut out of this bill or why the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) cannot have his amendment. This is about taking our manufacturing base and bringing it from 20th-century technology to 21st-century technology. It is incredibly important, and yet we do not even have the right to be able to vote up or down on it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlemen from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for acknowledging the unfairness of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying resolution. The Federal response to Hurricane Katrina was absolutely unacceptable. The American people deserve to know what went so terribly wrong and what we must do to make sure it never, ever happens again. Unfortunately, the partisan committee being proposed by the Republican majority will not give the American people any confidence that Congress is asking tough questions and demanding straight answers. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, after the flood comes the whitewash. For over 4 years, the Republican majority has refused at every turn to hold the Bush administration accountable for its mistakes. There has been no meaningful oversight, no tough investigations on anything. Instead, Congress has turned a blind eye, and the bill we have before us represents more of the same. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), our colleague, has a different approach, a better approach. The commission established by his legislation would be truly independent, and its recommendations would carry far more weight. This independent commission would be similar to the 9/11 panel that was such an effective, meaningful force for change. Because what the American people deserve at the end of this process is a document that does not necessarily agree with everything I say or does not cover the President's back, which is what the Republicans are trying to do today, but that actually helps fix the problems that Hurricane Katrina exposed. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the commission established by the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Hastings) bill is not simply to assign blame. Rather, an independent commission would take a tough, honest approach to an incredibly complicated problem. Pre-identifying vulnerable areas, strategically deploying resources, anticipating potential stumbling blocks as we prepare for disasters, these need to be the guiding principles of our national response plan. An independent commission would produce recommendations that enhance our national response plan and enable FEMA to be structured appropriately. Furthermore, this commission will show whether or not, as I believe, FEMA lacked appropriate leadership, leadership with experience in disaster management, and then recommend ways in which the agency can be better prepared, both in terms of personnel and resources. Unlike the President, I do not think Brownie did a heck of a job. An effective response to a disaster or crisis cannot happen unless the best qualified people are coordinating the efforts, equipped with the best resources. The partisan committee put forward by the Republican majority just does not cut it. Instead, it would be made up of Members of Congress, and there are three problems with that approach: First, there are some Members whose time would be better spent dealing with the immediate recovery and reconstruction needs created by the hurricane. Second, Republican politicians would be ``investigating'' other Republican politicians. And, third, some of the problems we saw in the gulf coast include bad funding choices made by Congress itself. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina was a national disgrace. The job of this Congress is not to run interference for the Bush administration; it is to do what is best for the American people. Seventy-six percent of the public want an independent commission because, quite frankly, they do not trust the Republican majority to do it right. They have a pattern of sweeping problems under the rug, of turning everything into a political fight. That pattern has to stop, and we can stop it today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this amendment, and I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the dean of our delegation, for his leadership on this issue. Years ago the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) played a critical role in the passage of the Pipeline Safety Act, which stressed the need for the remote siting of LNG terminals; and since then he has continued to be a national leader and advocate for the needs and safety of our communities. This is a commonsense amendment that we have before us today. I can tell my colleagues firsthand that the current system does not work. In my district there has been a proposal to construct an LNG storage tank in the middle of Fall River. The site itself would be just 1,200 feet from homes with over 9,000 people living within a 1-mile radius of the tank. Immediately, community and State officials sounded off the alarm. They pointed to environmental concerns, and there are a lot of environmental concerns with the siting in this area, which FERC just dismissed without ever conferring with the EPA. They also pointed out the fact that if this facility would be constructed, the tankers would have to go under three different bridges in the river, and all three bridges would have to be shut down for a period of time for safety concerns. And the problem with that is that neighboring communities would then be denied access to hospitals that are located in Fall River and other emergency facilities. Again, FERC totally ignored that. The community raised security concerns which were supported by a report prepared by counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke talking about the potential threat to the community in the case of a terrorist attack or an accident. Yet the Department of Homeland Security was never included in the review process. In fact, despite repeated requests from members of the Massachusetts and Rhode Island delegations, officials from Homeland Security have yet to comment on the site, let alone visit the site. Instead, they referred our request to the Coast Guard, which is only required to present its recommendation prior to the actual construction of the LNG tanks. So in the end, without any coordination with the necessary Federal agencies, FERC approved the construction of the LNG storage tank in Fall River, Massachusetts. Now it was only after the Navy intervened, pointing to additional threats to national security, that FERC finally took a step back and are now deciding whether to consider an appeal by the State of Massachusetts. This one case in Fall River illustrates a larger problem. Our current system fails to ensure a thorough review of all of the issues surrounding LNG sites; and the Markey amendment, by bringing the Coast Guard to the table before new LNG sites are approved, I think is a necessary step in that direction. As our Nation's energy demands continue to grow, we must work to ensure that adequate energy sources are available; and I would be the last person to argue otherwise. We do need additional LNG facilities in this country. But we must be mindful that our public health, security and safety are not disregarded in the process. I have never had a more maddening experience in my life than dealing with FERC. They did not consider, let alone discuss, any of the issues that were raised by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by our governor or by local officials or by local public safety officials. They went ahead and approved this and justified the approval without considering any of the evidence that was brought before them, evidence, quite frankly, that points to major security concerns. I think that what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has done here is proposed an amendment that, you know, should not be controversial. I think all of us here should want to make sure that these facilities are sited in the safest possible areas. I have a prediction. That is, in the not-too-distant future, some homeland security chief is going to weigh in on this and recommend that LNG facilities not be sited in heavily populated areas and that, instead, they be sited in areas that are not in the middle of a growing urban area or offshore them because of the safety concerns. So this amendment should be approved. I would hope that my colleagues would join with me in supporting the Markey amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to express, first and foremost, my sincere sympathy for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are dealing with a catastrophic event; and they deserve whatever it takes from the Federal Government. The mismanagement of the Federal response to this disaster is beyond comprehension. The victims and the rest of America deserve answers to their questions, not excuses, because there is no excuse for the slow Federal reaction. There is no excuse for the lack of preparedness. There is no excuse for this absence of leadership. Why were Federal funding requests by Louisiana for flood control perennially denied? Why was the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers budget for levee construction slashed by a record $72 million? Why was the head of FEMA, Michael Brown, hired despite having zero background in disaster management and was actually fired from his previous job for mismanagement? It is clear now that we need to revamp FEMA, and that starts with firing Michael Brown as director who has been an absolute embarrassment. Louisiana Governor Blanco has hired former FEMA director James Lee Witt to direct Katrina recovery efforts. I encourage President Bush to follow Governor Blanco's lead and to hire someone new, this time based on qualifications, not political patronage. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government needs to get the best people possible working on the rescue, recovery, and rebuilding efforts. Anything less is unacceptable.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, after passage of this rule, the House will consider the conference report for the energy bill. And before I explain why I strongly oppose this conference report, let me congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for presiding over a full and open conference committee. Last Congress Democrats were shut out of the conference committee. Republicans wrote that bill in the dark of night and behind closed doors. This time the chairman opened the process. He consulted frequently with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and held public hearings. The energy bill is an important piece of legislation that deserves to be debated out in the open, and while I do not support the final product, I want to commend the chairman for attempting to restore some bipartisanship to this Chamber, and I hope others will follow his example. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) deserves to be singled out as well. His long and distinguished career has produced some of the most important laws that govern our Nation. The gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) said it best last night in the Rules Committee when you talked about trying to discern the intent of one provision that would change current law. The chairman told the Rules Committees that as he was trying to explain the intent of the law, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) leaned across the table and talked about what he intended when he wrote that provision years ago. And so I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for his work on this conference committee. With that being said, Mr. Speaker, let me comment on the substance of the energy bill. I must say that I agree with the editorial in this morning's Washington Post which says, and I quote, ``The nicest thing we can say about the comprehensive energy bill is that it could have been a lot worse.'' We all know that our Nation is facing a severe energy crisis. The President knows it, the House knows it, and, most importantly, our constituents know it. As we stand here today, the average retail price for gasoline is $2.32, up 40 cents just this year. For a family of four this amounts to nearly $3,000 spent annually on gasoline. That is a tax increase courtesy of the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress, and the oil companies that are reaping the rewards of record profits. Yet the conference report that we have before us today does nothing, absolutely nothing, to lower energy prices for consumers. It fails to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil. It makes no real commitment to the development of renewable energy sources. In all, the oil and gas industries will receive a multibillion-dollar package of tax breaks, and if that was not for the dedicated leadership of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), these same companies would have also been shielded from liability claims for their role in polluting our Nation's water supply with MTBE. But let us be clear: Though a few concessions have been made, this bill is nowhere near what it should be. In fact, this bill is chock- full of giveaways to the oil and gas industry at the expense of public health and environmental safety. If enacted, nearly 30,000 new oil and gas projects developed each year will be exempted from clean water requirements which aim to control erosion and run-off into rivers and streams. These same companies, including the administration's friends at Halliburton, would also be permitted to inject fluid laced with toxic chemicals into oil and gas wells. This provision alone poses an enormous threat to the safety of our Nation's drinking water sources, and if that was not bad enough, this bill extends the reach of the Federal Government into what should be local energy decisions. Local communities like the City of Fall River, Massachusetts, in my district would have virtually no say in the construction, expansion and operation of liquid natural gas facilitates. Permits granted by State agencies would no longer be subject to review by State courts. Rather Federal appeals courts, which are far from experts on individual State laws, would have exclusive jurisdiction. This provision undermines the ability of State and local officials to protect their communities from dangers surrounding LNG. Mr. Speaker, the bill that we have before us today is not a comprehensive approach. It does not solve our Nation's energy crisis. And I cannot say it any more simply than this: The Energy Policy Act will harm the environment, reward special interests at the expense of consumers and taxpayers, and limit States rights. Mr. Speaker, I think we could have done much, much better, and I believe that it should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for the time. Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member. They have worked in a bipartisan way in this conference committee to produce this bill. Mr. Speaker, the following is an editorial that appeared in The Washington Post today entitled ``Energy Deficient'' and the editorial that appeared in today's New York Times entitled ``Energy Shortage.'' [From the New York Times, July 28, 2005] Energy Shortage The energy bill that has been six years in the making and is nearing the president's desk is not the unrelieved disaster some environmentalists make it out to be. But to say, as President Bush undoubtedly will, that it will swiftly move this country to a cleaner, more secure energy future is nonsense. The bill, approved by a House-Senate conference early Tuesday morning, does not take the bold steps necessary to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, and it also fails to address the looming problem of global warming. These shortcomings are chiefly the fault of the White House and its retainers in the House. To be sure, the Senate showed no more courage than the House in its refusal to increase fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks, even though higher standards, by common consent, are the easiest, quickest and most technologically feasible way to reduce oil demand and cut foreign imports. But the Senate did approve a renewable fuels provision requiring power plants to produce 10 percent of their electricity from nontraditional sources, like wind power, by 2010. It also approved a provision that would ask the president to reduce domestic oil consumption by one million barrels a day by whatever means he chose. The House conferees rejected both proposals. Meanwhile, both houses conspired in some spectacular giveaways. One would ease environmental restrictions on oil and gas companies drilling on public lands. The other would shower billions in undeserved tax breaks on the same companies, even as they wallow in the windfall profits produced by $60-a-barrel oil. The bill's most useful provisions may take years to realize their promise. Again thanks largely to the Senate, the tax provisions are far more hospitable to energy efficiency and renewable fuels than earlier versions of the bill, and include substantial incentives for buyers of fuel-efficient hybrid cars. More important in the long run, however, may be two provisions, buried deep in the bill, that are aimed at developing new energy technologies. One provision would encourage the development and commercial application of biofuels from agricultural products that, much like corn- based ethanol, might someday be used as a substitute for gasoline. The other provision is aimed at developing new clean-coal technologies to turn coal into a gas and, more important, capture emissions of carbon dioxide, a major contributor to global warming. These could be powerful new tools in any future effort to reshape the way Americans produce and use energy. But the success of both will depend on the willingness of the government to put money into them. That, in turn, will require a deeper commitment to a more adventurous energy policy than this administration has so far displayed. [From the Wasington Post, July 28, 2005] Energy Deficient Here's the nicest thing that we can say about the comprehensive energy bill that the House and Senate are due to take up, and will probably pass, before they leave town at the end of this week: It could have been a lot worse. Unlike the energy bill that the Senate filibustered in 2003, and in contrast to some earlier versions, this genuinely bipartisan bill contains fewer egregious pro-pollution measures and less pork. It will jump-start the commercial use of new clean coal, ethanol and biomass fuel technologies; promote energy efficiency standards; encourage investment in the electricity sector; and reinforce electricity reliability at last. It is less expensive than previous bills: The $11 billion net cost of the tax package plus the $2 billion direct spending comes to a relatively modest (for an energy bill) $13 billion over 10 years, with further costs depending on future appropriations. Nevertheless, this is a bill that leaves most of the hard questions for later. Aside from a few tax breaks for purchasers of fuel-efficient cars, it makes no significant attempt to reduce the enormous automobile fuel demand that makes this country so dependent on imported oil. While it provides incentives for the construction of a new generation of nuclear power plants, it doesn't deal with the unresolved long-term problem of nuclear waste. It leaves out the whole question of mandatory controls on the greenhouse gases that cause climate change, thereby costing both an opportunity to raise revenue and create a market mechanism that might have accelerated the development of cleaner, more efficient technologies. It also perpetuates distortions in the energy market, providing needless subsidies for oil drilling offshore and on federal lands, and for marginal oil wells. And, by the way, don't believe the spin: This bill will not lower fuel prices anytime soon. Given how long Congress labored over this legislation, and how much negotiation was required to get it to this stage, it's hard not to be disappointed by a bill that in effect preserves the status quo. It's also hard not to wonder whether the era of comprehensive, 1,700-page energy bills designed to appeal to multiple constituencies has passed. Clearly, some of the missing pieces--especially climate change and automotive fuel efficiency--will have to be dealt with separately in the future. But it's also true that some of the less controversial pieces of this bill, such as the electricity reliability provisions and the efficiency standards for appliances, could have been passed years-ago. Now that this process is over, congressional leaders should step back, focus on the nation's most urgent long-term energy needs and get to work on more carefully targeted legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when this House first considered the Department of Interior appropriations bill, I came to the floor to express my deep outrage that this legislation nearly eliminated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I join with my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), in urging that the House and the Senate conferees restore some level of funding for this vital program. I am pleased that 119 Members shared our concerns about this funding cut and signed on to our bipartisan letter. Mr. Speaker, I will insert the letter for the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been an enormous help to our local communities and the families who live in them. The Stateside grant program has helped to preserve open space, slow urban sprawl, and give our children safe places to play. It is a true partnership with Federal grants requiring a full match from States and local communities. In all, the stateside program has helped communities by funding 40,000 projects nationally. Success stories can be found in every State and in 98 percent of U.S. counties. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is especially near and dear to my heart, having led the fight on the floor of the House back in 1999 to restore $30 million for the stateside grant program in the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill after it had been zeroed out in 1995. In my district, the Land and Water Conservation Fund State assistance grants have provided much-needed funds to restore the historic Worcester Common in Worcester, Massachusetts, and renovate the Briggs Pool in Attleboro, Massachusetts. We have literally preserved dozens of acres of open space that otherwise would have been sold off for development that would not have been conducive to these communities. It has also helped to complete construction this coming fall with the Princeton playing fields in Princeton, Massachusetts. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is based upon a simple concept. It takes revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling and invests them in our Nation's public land, letting States take the lead. For 40 years this program has a proven track record and benefited from strong bipartisan support. It was the same bipartisan support that proved successful here today. Clearly the level of funding provided in this bill is far from what is required. In fact, the level of funding is at the same level it was when we resuscitated the program back in 1999. So I am disappointed with that. However, any amount appropriated to this program, no matter how small or large, serves a valuable purpose. I commend my colleagues for their hard work. I thank those who helped reinsert funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund back into this bill. I hope that we can come to some sort of consensus that next year we will restore funding to a level that is adequate, and to a level that we all promised our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record the letter I referred to earlier. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, July 22, 2005. Dear Conferee: We are writing to request that, as you move toward conference with the Senate on the FY 2006 Interior Appropriations Bill, you support the funding levels that were included for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the Senate passed version of the bill. Since its creation in 1964, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has been a critical source of funding for the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service. This funding is used to support the acquisition and maintenance of our national wildlife refuges, parks, forests, and public domain lands. In addition, the LWCF also funds a matching grant program to assist states and localities in acquiring recreational lands and developing facilities. An integral part of the LWCF, the state-side matching grant program has provided state and local parks and recreation directors with the desperately needed funding to help preserve open space and develop recreational facilities. Over the years, these matching grants have been used successfully to fund more than 37,000 state and local park and recreation projects, enabling millions of Americans to hike through magnificent scenery and view historic sites, bike along seaside and river trails, and picnic and play ball at local parks. The Senate-passed FY 2006 Interior Appropriations Bill provides $192 million for LWCF, which includes $30 million for the state-side grant program and $162 million for the federal program. This funding is absolutely essential for the proper stewardship of our nation's magnificent natural heritage, and therefore, we strongly urge you to maintain the funding levels for LWCF state-side and federal grant programs provided for in the Senate bill. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Jim McGovern, Rush Holt, Peter T. King, Jim Marshall, Robert E. Andrews, Michael H. Michaud, Michael M. Honda, Howard L. Berman, Rahm Emanuel, Barbara Lee, Donald M. Payne, Dennis J. Kucinich, Joseph Crowley, Richard E. Neal, Henry Cuellar, Rob Simmons, Rosa L. DeLauro, Shelley Berkley, Allyson Y. Schwartz, Melvin L. Watt, John Spratt, Jim Oberstar, John Lewis, Nick Rahall, Scott Garrett, Dan Lipinski, Mike Doyle, Betty McCollum, Harold Ford, John T. Salazar, Jim Langevin, Leonard L. Boswell, Elijah E. Cummings, Lloyd Doggett, Gene Green, Nancy L. Johnson, John Shimkus, Jo Bonner, Spencer Bachus, Mike McIntyre, Julia Carson, Vito Fossella, Adam Smith, Doris O. Matsui, Solomon P. Ortiz, Brian Higgins, Silvestre Reyes, Tammy Baldwin, Mike Thompson, Charles F. Bass, Tim Holden, Jay Inslee, Frank Pallone, Jr., Martin Meehan, Juanita Millender- McDonald Ike Skelton, Grace F. Napolitano, Sander Levin, Jerrold Nadler, Bernard Sanders, Chris Van Hollen, John B. Larson, George Miller, Tom Lantos, Gary L. Ackerman, Jim Matheson, Sherwood Boehlert, Ed Case, Raul M. Grijalva, Dale E. Kildee, Jim McDermott, Earl Blumenauer, Jim Saxton, Dennis Cardoza, Carolyn McCarthy, Michael R. McNulty, Ellen O. Tauscher, Timothy H. Bishop, Edolphus Towns, Peter DeFazio, Anthony D. Weiner, John D. Dingell, Sherrod Brown, Wm. Lacy Clay, William Delahunt, Louise Slaughter, Barney Frank, Robert Menendez, Eliot L. Engel, Bobby Scott, Ben Cardin, Tom Udall, Janice Schakowsky, Bart Gordon, Lynn Woolsey, Stephen F. Lynch, Donna M. Christensen, Thomas Allen, Thaddeus G. McCotter, Lois Capps, Emanuel Cleaver, Mike Ferguson, Bart Stupak, David Price, Lane Evans, Carolyn B. Maloney, Jeb Bradley, Steve Israel, Pete Stark, Bob Etheridge, Mark Udall, Sue W. Kelly, Jerry F. Costello, Luis V. Gutierrez, Christopher Shays, Mike Ross, Charles A. Gonzalez, Neil Abercrombie, Anna Eshoo.