News release from Barney Frank
_________________________________________________________
Congressman, 4th District, Massachusetts
2252 Rayburn Building · Washington, D.C. 20515 · (202) 225-5931
July 16, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Peter Kovar (202-225-9400)
FRANK REJECTS UNFAIR CHARACTERIZATIONS OF FALL RIVER
In remarks on the floor of
the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday, Congressman Barney Frank
angrily rejected unfair characterizations of the City of Fall River by one
of his Republican colleagues during debate on the bill (H.R. 415) Frank
authored to include the Taunton River in the national Wild and Scenic Rivers
program. The House approved the bill on a vote of 242 – 175, after first
rejecting an amendment that would have stripped the portion of the river in
the Fall River area from the bill.
Responding to negative
comments about Fall River by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Frank said “every
elected legislator and local official supports [the bill]. For them to be
told essentially that ‘it’s too gritty, it’s too grubby, you aren’t the
people who we had in mind when we talked about the beauties of the
environment, you don’t deserve this because you’ve had graffiti and some of
you belong to gangs’ – an inaccurate description of the
whole city – to deny them that is I think a degree of cruelty, frankly, that
I hope this House does not encompass.
Frank was responding to Rep.
Bishop’s statement that “the only part of this river that’s scenic is the
graffiti that’s found on the bridges…[a]nd the only thing that’s wild about
this river are the gangs that wrote this graffiti…
Excerpts
from the relevant portions of the debate on the floor of the House are
included below
###
TAUNTON
RIVER WILD AND SCENIC DESIGNATION -- (House of Representatives - July 16,
2008) [Excerpts from Debate]
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. . . .
. . . Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman,
I want to begin by regretting the animus toward the people we represent that
we've just heard. The gentleman from Utah said, ``Wild and scenic. The only
thing wild about this are the gangs there.'' The city of Fall River, the
gentleman has an amendment that would exempt from this bill the city of Fall
River, Massachusetts, a city full of working people, many of them immigrants
who became American citizens, and their descendants, from Portugal and
elsewhere, people who worked in the garment industry and the textile
industry, a city which has suffered economically the fate of
de-industrialization.
Characterizing them and saying ``The only thing scenic
about them is their graffiti, the only thing wild about them is their
gangs,'' they don't deserve that denigration, no matter what political
points people want to score. If you want to come after me, if you want to
come after Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island or Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts,
we'll deal with it. But please don't denigrate these hardworking people.
Don't impute to them gang activity that doesn't exist. The gentleman who
accused them of gang activity has no idea of what goes on there and he makes
an inaccurate statement.
The only thing scenic is the graffiti? Is that not
scenic? This is the Battleship Massachusetts. It's part of a national park.
It's one of the few battleships that comes with a Patriot missile, because I
got Raytheon to put it up there. It's a park, a park for patriotic people.
Do you see any graffiti on the Battleship Massachusetts?
In fact, that is part of the problem here. Apparently
we're told it's okay to have a wild and scenic river. And of course we're
not saying it should be wild and scenic. We are talking about a part of the
statute that says you can have recreation. And these are people who have
decided that in part because they have lost their industrial base that they
had for a variety of reasons, they will develop new economic activity that
is based on their river.
By the way, one of the bridges that is talked about,
one of these structures, we have gotten money to take down. Like a number of
cities that walled themselves off from the river, Fall River has appreciated
the great beauty and attractiveness of that waterfront. And they would like
to tear it down.
But here is the issue. Is environmentalism only for
suburbanites? Do working people who have found themselves in economic
distress have no right to try and enhance the quality of their environment?
Let me have some more of those pictures down here. Let
me have some more to show people what we are talking about. We are not
talking about only what was pictured.
This is part of the area that would be banned from the
bill under the gentleman from Utah's amendment. So is this. Part of it is
Mr. McGovern's district. Part of it is my district. It impacts the other
districts. Yes, it is not everywhere beautiful. These are people who haven't
had the good fortune to live always in land that was so attractive. But they
would like to try and improve their situation. They would like to be able to
enhance the quality of their environment without being denigrated as gang
members or graffitists. Yes, there are a few people who do graffiti. The
overwhelming majority in every single community along this river on both
sides has asked for this designation. It was begun by our late and beloved
colleague Joe Moakley before anybody heard of LNG.
By the way, on LNG, there is an LNG plant in the
district of our colleague, Mr. Markey. We in the Massachusetts delegation
overwhelmingly supported a second LNG plant just a little bit offshore, just
north of Boston that has been approved. Many of us support a third one. It
is not a case of rejecting LNG. And I notice that people on the other side,
those who think Fall River is just full of graffiti artists and gang members
and don't know that wonderful city and the decent, patriotic people who live
there, they circulated an editorial from the Boston Herald saying this isn't
needed. And the Herald editorial, the op-ed piece that they circulated,
concluded by saying, of course, it's not necessary because the LNG plant is
dead. It's not simply the current LNG plant that has been rejected. It was
the Coast Guard saying that in that narrow waterway, with the bridges that
have to be traversed, you can't do it.
Carlos Gutierrez said ``no,'' the Secretary of
Commerce. I've got to say, I didn't know that I would be defending the Bush
administration so much here. I know I will be defending them against the
Republicans on the questions of the housing bill. But we were also told
there was this terrible conspiracy with the Park Service under George Bush.
I don't think the Interior Department under President Bush was engaged in
this kind of chicanery that has been imputed to them.
We are talking about the desire of people who live in
an area that has some industrial activity, but some residential and
recreational areas, who want to protect what they have and make it better.
They have asked us, and we have worked with them, to tear down an elevated
highway. We are working with them to enhance the quality of their
environment in a way that will also improve things economically. Every
Member of Congress whose district is remotely near here strongly supports
this bill. Every city and town along the way supports this. Every elected
legislator and local official supports it. For them to be told essentially
that ``it's too gritty, it's too grubby, you aren't people who we had in
mind when we talked about the beauties of the environment, you don't deserve
this because you've had graffiti and some of you belong to gangs''--an
inaccurate characterization of the whole city--to deny them that is I think
a degree of cruelty, frankly, that I hope this House does not encompass.
I and others have tried very hard to take into account
what other Members think about their districts. To repudiate what all of the
Members of Congress, five of us very directly involved here, think would be
important for this particular area because an LNG plant that has been
rejected by the Department of Commerce and by the Coast Guard and cannot be
resuscitated, might some day in 10 years be resuscitated, and by then we
will have had enough other LNG plants that it wouldn't even have any demand
probably, that these people should be told, just the 9 miles, conveniently,
the city of Fall River, the urban area, the area of hardworking immigrants
who became American citizens, that they should be told that they don't
qualify for environmental protection is a decision that I hope this House
would not make.
I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Rep. Grijalva] and
the gentleman from West Virginia [Rep. Rahall] for the consideration they
have given. It may in part be relevant that these are Members who themselves
understand the desire of working people, of people who have lived in these
kinds of areas, to get the same kind of consideration for their
environmental needs as wealthy suburbanites.
I hope that the bill is passed without amendments that
would cripple it.
|