Jim Matheson

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment Chairman Miller. He has been a tireless advocate for America's mine workers and has worked hard to improve mine safety. I appreciate working with the Chairman to include language in H.R. 2768 that will allow for the appropriate use of belt-air in mines. This legislation is very near to my heart and is something that I have been working on in the aftermath of the disaster at Crandall Canyon Mine which is in my district. On August 6, six miners were trapped when rocks and debris exploded off the walls of the tunnels where they were working, more than eighteen hundred feet underground. During the rescue attempt that followed, further disaster struck when underground activity caused a burst of rubble to explode off the cavern wall, killing three rescuers. One of the most difficult aspects of the Crandall Canyon mine collapse was not knowing where the trapped miners were when the cave-in occurred. It made for an excruciating ordeal for the families, the mine owner and the mine rescuers. The lack of communications left the rescuers with the frustrating scenario of trying to drill blindly through hundreds of feet of rock with the hope of reaching survivors. While mines generally have reliable communications systems in place, most mines have properties that make implementation of current technology difficult. For example, the open air pathway required for radio signals and WiFi do not exist and less than ten percent of the radio spectrum used above ground can be used underground. Because of the challenges of the mine environment and the limited nature of the market, much needed technology has not yet been developed or is not commercially available. H.R. 2768 contains a provision that accelerates the deployment of current mine communications technology in mines, which is very important. I would also like to add that the House recently passed legislation that I wrote, H.R. 3877, the Mine Communications Technology Innovation Act. That bill, if enacted, would accelerate the development of innovative, next generation mine tracking and communications technology. Communications issues are critical and must be addressed as soon as possible in order to better protect our miners. I thank you Mr. Chairman for your leadership on mine safety issues.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I missed votes on December 11th and December 12th 2007 in order to attend the funeral of a close family member, which was held in Utah. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall vote No. 1142, ``aye,'' on rollcall vote No. 1143, ``aye,'' on rollcall vote No. 1144, ``aye,'' on rollcall vote No. 1145, ``aye,'' on rollcall vote No. 1146, ``aye,'' on rollcall vote No. 1147, ``aye,'' on rollcall vote No. 1148, ``aye,'' on rollcall vote No. 1149, ``aye,'' on rollcall vote No. 1150, ``aye,'' on rollcall vote No. 1151, ``aye,'' on rollcall vote No. 1152, ``aye,'' on rollcall vote No. 1153, ``aye,'' on rollcall vote No. 1154, ``aye,'' on rollcall vote No. 1155, ``aye.''

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman I rise today, first of all, in strong support of H.R. 3355, the Homeowners' Defense Act, and I offer an amendment that I believe will further support the intent of this legislation, namely to better enable State-sponsored reinsurance programs to protect themselves by transferring catastrophic risk into capital markets. I should first commend Congressman Klein and Congressman Mahoney for their proactive approach in this legislation, which allows States to responsibly plan for disasters ahead of time by pooling risk. By accessing capital markets to transfer risk, State-sponsored insurance funds will be better protected in the event of future disaster and will be increasingly able to provide affordable services for homeowners. This legislation will provide an important backstop for many of the larger State-sponsored insurance plans but will also provide States like my home State of Utah with an opportunity to prepare for future catastrophes. The State of Utah does not currently have a State- sponsored catastrophic insurance plan but is considering developing one. Utah has been ranked as one of the top ten U.S. earthquake States in the United States, and in some areas of the State, catastrophe risks also include wildfires, flooding, and mudslides. Of course many of these risks are unique to Utah, but many of these risks, things like fault lines or forest ranges, are spread over many States. I believe that States should be assessing many of these risks on a regional basis given the nature of those risks. Very simply, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require that the first annual report of the consortium that's established by this legislation should include an assessment of the costs associated with catastrophic risk for States and regions and an analysis of the costs and benefits of participation in the program for States that are not part of the consortium. It is my hope that in providing States with an assessment of the catastrophic risks posed to their respective State and region and the costs associated with trying to address those risks, those States could evaluate and consider developing a State-sponsored catastrophic insurance plan if they do not already have one. I believe this legislation provides an important mechanism for States to protect themselves in the event of catastrophe, and I urge support of this amendment so that States can make a more informed decision going forward. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. I thank the chairman for yielding and I also commend Chairman Rangel for his work on this agreement. I think it represents a great step forward on the trade agenda. Mr. Speaker, I think that it's human nature to have difficulty accepting change. Change can be traumatic, and we are in a world that's changing. In a globalized world where technology is taking us to new places, this flatter world that Tom Friedman talked about in his book, that's a change. The question is, do you stick your head in the sand and ignore change, or do you embrace change and try to take advantage of it? That's the fundamental issue I think we ought to be talking about in terms of engaging the rest of the world, engaging the rest of the world in economic opportunity in a changing world. Mind you, globalization is a mixed bag, and there are positives and negatives that come out of it, but the question is, as a country, do we want to try to embrace that opportunity? This agreement represents a wonderful step in embracing that type of opportunity for this country. Beyond the economic benefits, which a lot of speakers have talked about today, there are also the benefits of relationships with these other countries. The eight living former Secretaries of State have all encouraged Congress, in fact, urged Congress to move ahead with this agreement, to build better ties with the country of Peru, a good democratic friend in a region of the world where there are some unsettled countries. This is good policy in terms of how we have those relationships in South America. I encourage my colleagues to step away a bit from some of the rhetoric, as with many issues, that comes out that is not necessarily accurate. I encourage my colleagues to look at the substance of this agreement and see how Chairman Rangel has made such progress in coming up with a responsible new agenda for trade with this Democratic majority. As I started, I will close the same way, I commend the chairman, he has stepped up to the plate in a substantive way. He is moving forward. I urge passage of the Peru FTA.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3877) to require the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish an initiative to promote the research, development, and demonstration of miner tracking and communications systems and to promote the establishment of standards regarding underground communications to protect miners in the United States, as amended.

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I'm very pleased that this action is taking place today on the floor of the House of Representatives. I represent the Second Congressional District of Utah, and that includes the Crandall Canyon Mine where this past August I think everyone in this country is aware of the coal mining accident that occurred where six men were trapped, and during the rescue attempt, three rescuers were killed in a cave-in. There were a lot of emotions that we all felt and shared during that disaster; but beyond those emotions, I think something that must have crossed all of our minds as we all watched this tragedy unfold was a question, and that was, how is it as the rescuers tried to locate these six trapped men that we can't know exactly where they are, that there isn't some kind of signal or beacon or some way to communicate such that we can have a better sense of exactly where the six men were trapped? I think that's a question that a lot of us have, and here in Congress, as a member of the House Science Committee, I asked those questions, and the committee collectively, majority and minority, has looked at that issue. The answer really is that the technology doesn't exist today to communicate in this manner between the surface and folks who are trapped deep underground, and so the effort here and the purpose of this legislation, it's a very narrow piece of legislation, looks at encouraging development of technology that would allow this type of communication to occur in the future. The thing about this bill that I'm really proud of is the fact that the committee worked so well together, and I really want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for their extraordinary effort and also the staff, both majority and the minority, for working together to move this bill in a rather quick manner and in a bipartisan manner. Suggestions were taken from folks on both sides of the aisle, and the bill that came out of the committee reflected those discussions and deliberations among everyone involved in the committee. So I think this is an example where Congress is passing good legislation, a substantive piece of legislation. It's a piece of legislation that is so important for the 1,400 underground mines we have in this country and, quite frankly, the many thousands of underground mines that exist around the world today, where this type of technology, if it is developed, will allow better communication capability and allow an opportunity for perhaps more success in rescue operations. Now, I want to be clear on a couple of things. The purpose of the legislation is really to accelerate next-generation technology. The legislation will direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish an initiative to promote research, development, and demonstration of miner tracking and communication systems and to promote the establishment of standards and other measurement services regarding underground mines. I think the legislation will foster much- needed research and development in this field of communications to better protect miners. The time to address this issue is now, before any more accidents leave any additional miner families desperate for word about their loved ones. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3877, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. MATHESON. I thank my colleague. I also want to thank him for making one additional really good point in his remarks, and that is that this legislation is complementary with what we are trying to do at NIOSH and MSHA. Madam Speaker, Congress these days doesn't have the best reputation of working together on certain things, but this is an example where this committee worked really well in terms of coming up with legislation, where bills were originally introduced, there were some other questions during the committee process. Folks on the minority side of the aisle offered suggestions for a manager's amendment. We approved this bill. It has good bipartisan support. It's the right thing to do. I again want to thank Dr. Gingrey and everyone on the Science Committee staff for their help in making this legislation work. I will just close by saying that I visited the Crandall Canyon mine families right after the disaster. They were going through so many emotions that it's difficult for us to even imagine, but to not know where their loved ones were was probably the greatest frustration of all. If this legislation can provide a path to help provide answers to those questions in the future, then, clearly, it's the right thing to do. I ask for a favorable vote from everybody on this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I have long stated that caring for our children is always the right thing to do. Every parent in my State of Utah and in this country knows that access to health care and preventive medicine for our kids is the right thing to do. It has been 10 years ago that we passed this program. It has helped insure more than 6 million children, and that is a good thing. And we have made that type of progress even as health care costs have gone up and the number of people struggling to get and to pay for health insurance has increased. We made that progress through the Children's Health Insurance Program because it is a model that works. The States do their part, the Federal Government does its part, private insurance does its part, and the families through copays and premiums do their part as well. At a time when it is often tough to make progress on important issues, why would we want to turn our backs on our kids and stop progress in its tracks? As Members of Congress, none of us have to worry about this. We all have insurance for our kids. We don't need to worry about being one huge medical bill away from facing bankruptcy. Let's think about the folks who aren't in the same situation that we all have as Members of Congress. The best investment we can make is in our kids. I urge Congress to override the President's veto.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance (STAAR) Act,'' which I believe has the potential to save many thousands of lives by strengthening the United States' response to infectious pathogens that are becoming increasingly resistant to existing antibiotics. I am proud to introduce this legislation with my colleague, Rep. Mike Ferguson, as a concrete step towards addressing antibiotic resistance. Media reports about the threat of resistant infections now occur on almost a daily basis. Earlier this year, media attention regarding extensively-drug resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) made this topic common conversation in our homes and offices. Suddenly we were forced to think about how quickly an infection can spread, especially in the age of international air travel, and the disastrous result if the cause was a strain of bacteria that failed to respond to our current antibiotics. Another resistant infection drastically on the rise is community- acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA). Historically, this infection was acquired during a hospital stay, but now is affecting young, healthy people and spreading in our communities. We've heard stories of high school, college and professional athletes losing their lives or careers as a result of these infections. Sadly, this infection has become far too common, difficult to treat and has few options to fight it. It can leave individuals disfigured, if they survive. In my own state of Utah, the number of children with MRSA infections at the Primary Children's Medical Center in Salt Lake City has increased by almost 20 fold since 1989. There are still more infections to worry about. We have numerous reports of our soldiers coming home from Iraq with Acinetobactor--a resistant infection that is especially difficult to treat and the only option is a very toxic antibiotic. Other examples of concern include vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA), an alarming development because vancomycin is the drug of last resort for treating several serious infections, and Escherichia coli (E. coli), which has caused outbreaks due to contamination of spinach, peanut butter, and other foods we regularly consume. We have taken antibiotic development for granted. Few of us remember medicine before the discovery of antibiotics. Antibiotics have allowed many medical advances, including routine invasive surgeries, organ transplants, and other procedures that otherwise would be impossible due to resulting infections. But we are falling behind in our ability to protect ourselves against infections, and we have a lot of catching up to do. In addition, there are problems of significant and inappropriate use of antibiotics; a lack of adequate research to address the many facets of resistance, including basic, clinical, interventional, and epidemiologic research as well as research to support the development of new diagnostics, biologics, devices and, of course, antibiotics; a fractured and underfunded resistance surveillance system; and insufficient coordination of the federal response, which is critically needed as the solutions to addressing antibiotic resistance involve multiple agencies and departments. I am not the first person in the United States Congress to take on this issue. I feel certain, however, that the STAAR Act is the most comprehensive legislation introduced to date to address this serious and life-threatening patient safety and public health problem. There is no doubt that we must act now to begin to reverse the alarming trend, and infectious disease experts tell me that the multi-pronged approach contained in the STAAR Act provides our best chance to address the multiple problems that face us. I commend my many colleagues who have demonstrated leadership on this issue over the years, especially Chairman Dingell. He recognized this issue nearly 15 years ago and asked the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to examine the problem of antimicrobial resistance. In 1995, OTA reported to Congress that ``The impacts of antibiotic-resistant bacteria can be reduced by preserving the effectiveness of current antibiotics through infection control, vaccination and prudent use of antibiotics, and by developing new antibiotics specifically to treat infections caused by antibiotic resistant bacteria.'' Also, I would like to recognize the leadership of my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Stupak. In the 106th Congress, he and our former colleague, Mr. Burr, introduced the ``Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act.'' Parts of this bill became law and provide the basis of the legislation I introduce today. Specifically, that bill, which is expressed in Section 319E, ``Combating Antimicrobial Resistance'' of the Public Health Service Act, directed the Secretary to establish an Antimicrobial Resistance Task Force to coordinate Federal programs relating to antimicrobial resistance. Also, the bill required research and development of new antimicrobial drugs and diagnostics; educational programs for medical and health personnel in the use of antibiotics; and grants to establish demonstration programs promoting the judicious use of antimicrobial drugs and the detection and control of the spread of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. Authorization for these programs expired September 30, 2006. The STAAR Act reauthorizes these programs and builds on the Federal efforts that have been highlighted in the Public Health Service Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, published in 2001 by the Task Force. The Action Plan identified thirteen key elements (out of 84 elements) as top priority action items that are critically necessary to address the growing resistance crisis. Only months after the release of the Action Plan, our former colleague Mr. Brown and many of my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee, including Chairmen Dingell and Pallone, and Mr. Waxman, Mr. Towns, Mr. Green, and Ms. DeGette, introduced the ``Antibiotic Resistance Prevention Act of 2001.'' This legislation sought to provide additional funding specifically for the top priority action items in the Action Plan. My colleagues recognized the urgency of this situation and explained that ``The Institute of Medicine, the American Society for Microbiology, the World Health Organization, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and the General Accounting Office each have found that the Nation should improve surveillance for mounting antimicrobial resistance problems; prolong the useful life of antimicrobial drugs; develop new drugs; and utilize other measures, such as improved vaccines, diagnostics, and infection control measures to prevent and control antimicrobial resistance.'' Although Congress has taken steps in the past to address the problem, antimicrobial resistance continues to grow. In 2004, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) published, ``Bad Bugs, No Drugs: As Antibiotic Discovery Stagnates a Public Health Crisis Brews'' to highlight the lack of research and development for new antibiotics. Antibiotics are not profitable compared to those that treat chronic (long-term) conditions and lifestyle issues. In addition, when a new antibiotic comes on the market, it is discouraged from use to avoid the development of resistance. Also, antibiotics are taken for short periods of time--unlike those for chronic disease which may be taken daily. Earlier this year, Mr. Baird, Ms. Cubin and I introduced legislation to provide tax credits and other incentives for antibiotic research and development, as well as to encourage that antibiotics, vaccines, and diagnostics become more commonly manufactured in the United States. Last week, Congress sent the FDA Amendments Act to the President for signature. This legislation included antibiotic provisions I supported and offered as an amendment during committee consideration. Specifically, the FDA Amendments Act promotes education regarding what incentives may be available through the Orphan Drug program for antibiotics and improves information laboratories and clinicians have about antibiotic resistance. The ``Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance (STAAR) Act'' compliments these past legislative efforts. The STAAR Act is comprehensive legislation that advances the thirteen key elements identified in the Action Plan and authorizes adequate funding for these strategies. My bill strengthens existing efforts by establishing an Office of Antimicrobial Resistance (OAR) within the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health. The Director of OAR would serve as the director of the existing interagency task force. Also, to encourage input from experts outside the federal government, my bill would establish a Public Health Antimicrobial Advisory Board (PHAAB) to provide much needed advice about antimicrobial resistance and strategies to address it. The STAAR Act will strengthen existing surveillance, data collection, and research activities as a means to reduce the inappropriate use of antimicrobials, develop and test new interventions to limit the spread of resistant organisms, and create new tools to detect, prevent and treat these ``bad bugs'' for which there are no drugs. Infectious diseases experts, including the IDSA, have said it strongly supports this multi-faceted, strategic approach. I appreciate the interest and leadership many of my colleagues have demonstrated on this issue in the past. This legislation has been a long time coming. I appreciate the effort of my colleague, Mr. Ferguson, who joins me to introduce this bipartisan legislation. Finally, I urge my colleagues to work with me to give our federal agencies the tools they need to ensure that combating antimicrobial resistance becomes a priority.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that would correct a drafting error that involves a 25-acre parcel of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, and land that is part of the Turn-About Ranch, which rehabilitates troubled youth. An erroneous survey in January 1999 was the cause of this trespass conflict when Congress approved a major land exchange (P.L. 105-335) between the state of Utah and the border of the Grand Staircase Escalante (GSE) Monument. This legislation makes a minor boundary change to resolve the trespass conflict. It would grant the owners of the ranch the right to purchase the erroneously surveyed land at a fair market value, enabling this important and effective program for troublesome youth to continue unimpeded. The Turn-About Ranch has graduated approximately 500 troubled and at- risk teenagers through an intense program of training and rehabilitation. The ranch also employs about 35 Garfield County residents. The Turn-About Ranch has strong support from the local community, and the Garfield County Commission, as well as approval from the parents of the troubled youth. The government-owned land administered by the BLM surrounds the congressional action by passing this legislation in Congress. The land was historically used for agriculture and grazing purposes. The Townsend family purchased the ranch and then leased the land to the Turn-About Ranch, Inc., for the sole purpose of rehabilitating the troubled youth, and restoring the values and self-esteem of these wayward teens. Madam Speaker, this legislation is a fair resolution to a technical problem. The Senate Energy Committee staff has expressed support for solving the problem, and the community is eager for this legislation to be passed. I hope Congress can implement this legislation and resolve this problem to continue helping our troubled adolescent teens.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the bipartisan Vietnam Memorial Resolution commemorating the 25th anniversary of the construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, H. Res. 326. This memorial honors the more than 58,000 brave men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice during the Vietnam war for our great Nation. We must never forget the brave service members who served in Vietnam. Millions of people visit this breathtaking memorial to pay their respect to those people who lost their lives between 1956 and 1975 or are still missing in action. The memorial has been a source of comfort and healing for those families and friends who have lost loved ones in the Vietnam war. I also wish to express my support and gratitude for all the men and women who served with valor in our armed services protecting our freedom and democracy. I believe that the Vietnam memorial encourages all people of the United States, and the world, to remember the sacrifices of American veterans of this war, especially those who served in Vietnam. This memorial is a beautiful work of art and this resolution has my full support.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. And I would like to recognize and thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon of the House Education and Labor Committee for their support of this resolution and enabling us to move it to the floor so quickly. I'd also very much like to thank both of my colleagues from Utah, Mr. Bishop and Mr. Cannon, who are here on the floor today also in support of this resolution. And I'd like to acknowledge the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, who is here also to speak on this resolution today. I rise today to honor the sacrifice and the courage of six missing miners and the three rescuers who died in a mine disaster at the Crandall Canyon coal mine in Huntington, Utah just a few weeks ago. It was in the early hours of August 6, the six miners were trapped when rocks and debris exploded off the walls of the tunnel where they were working more than 1,800 feet underground. And the cave-in created a ground shock that measured 3.9 on the Richter scale at the University of Utah's seismographic center. Very quickly, rescue crews assembled in an effort to locate and reach the six men, but, to date, Kerry Allred, Don Erickson, Juan Carlos Payan, Brandon Phillips, Manuel Sanchez and Jose Luis Hernandez are still missing. Ground movement, what miners calls bumps or bounces, continued at the mine. During the rescue attempt further disaster struck. Three rescue miners, Gary Jensen, Brandon Kimber, and Dale ``Bird'' Black were killed when once again underground activity caused a burst of rubble to explode off the cavern walls. Rescuers had to literally dig with their hands to get their colleagues out from beneath piles of coal and rocks. Their efforts saved another six rescuers who were injured but are thankfully recovering. Throughout this catastrophe the local community has remained steadfast. The Emery County Sheriff, his deputies and other first responders worked round the clock to maintain order as private, State and Federal teams maintained the search effort. Community leaders and the families of these mining towns in Emery and Carbon Counties came together to support the trapped miners' families, the rescuers and the emergency crews. They did what they have always done in coal country during hard times; they held each other close, they hoped, and they prayed. Today the House honors the missing and the dead. We extend condolences of our Nation to their families. We recognize the many volunteers who rushed to their aid and who provided endless hours of compassionate support. And finally, we honor the proud heritage of coal mining families. Their skill, their hard work and their dedication contributes to the prosperity and quality of life that each and every one of us enjoys.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My wife and I are very fortunate. We have two wonderful little boys. Their names are William and Harris, and they're really fortunate because they have access to health care because, as a Congressman, I have access to the Federal employee health insurance program. And that's how it is for all of us as Members of Congress. See, we have health insurance and our kids have health insurance. This debate isn't about us, and as we get caught up in these discussions, this rhetoric about process and concerns about the way this bill has come to the floor, I think we're losing sight about who this issue is really about because we've got 11 million kids in this country who are involved in households where they make enough money they don't qualify for Medicare. How do we get them access to health care? The CHIP program's done a great job in the past 10 years, and we've got about 6 million of them covered, but there are 5 million kids out there who still aren't. That's what this debate is about, and I think when you have something sometimes you take it for granted, and all of us take for granted the fact that we have health insurance. Now, let me tell you why I don't take this for granted because, in my household, my wife happens to be a pediatrician, and she works at a children's hospital in Salt Lake City. She tells me the stories about kids who come into that hospital who have not had access to preventive care, who have health problems that escalated into far more serious circumstances because they didn't have access to health care, and I hear those stories all the time. That's what we ought to be focused on in this debate. That's what this debate is about. Vote for this bill. Let's do the right thing for our country's children.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. I think there are two broad issues out here. Our hour is drawing to a close, but there are two broad issues out here in the energy debate. One is energy independence and security, and the other is climate change challenge. Now those issues are not mutually exclusive. In fact, a number of the provisions to pursue each of those issues are complementary, and we should look at it in that context. But I do think that the Blue Dogs have come up with a set of principles, we haven't been able to talk about every one of them tonight, and we will come back again on the floor to do that. As I said, this is a complicated issue. There are a lot of layers to this issue, and this Congress needs to first recognize that level of complexity to make sure we make good decisions. You have to recognize the magnitude of the issue before you can make good decisions. But I do want to touch on just one other area that is a principle the Blue Dogs feel is very important, and that's the notion that we need to have an aggressive effort at technology development. We talked a little bit about technology development tonight, but let's put it in perspective to where if we really want to get to a point where we have greater energy independence, and if we make progress on the carbon emission issue as well. The technologies aren't there today that need to be there. First of all, is the technology called carbon capture and sequestration. More than half of all the electricity we make in this country is coal. You know what, this country has a lot of coal. In fact, one-fourth of the world's coal is right here in the United States. It's cheap, it's plentiful. The way we burn it now we put CO2 in the atmosphere. The hope is that we can develop the technology to capture that carbon and sequester it. But that technology isn't there yet today. So, when Blue Dogs talk about we need to make a significant and aggressive commitment to technology development, that's one of the technologies. It's real straightforward. We will have coal as part of our energy mix. I think most people think that in terms for the long run in terms of our electric production. But we have got to solve that carbon issue, and we have got to invest in technology. Second, we have had discussions about cellulosic ethanol. We can't rely on corn as our source of ethanol in this country. There has to be a better way to do it. We have got to move technology in that direction. A third one, just to throw an example, battery technology. We want to get to the point where we have the car you can go home and plug in at night and run on electricity. A lot of people have spent a lot of time and money trying to develop that battery technology. We are still not there yet. That's an appropriate Federal role to invest and move ahead with that research and development. I just want to make sure, that's the other principle I get out tonight that the Blue Dogs believe in, that that's the right role for the Federal Government to do, to push the development of these technologies. One of the greatest American strengths is innovation. That's what this country is all about. It's why we are a superpower. We have got to unleash that again and again. The government can't drive all that, but we can sure encourage it. That is what we ought to do.

Mr. MATHESON. I want to thank both of my colleagues for joining us. As I said, the Blue Dog coalition stands ready to work with people on both sides of the aisle. We approach these issues through a very, practical, pragmatic way. We want to do what's right for this country. We are going to come back and talk about energy more and more. By the way, I think this is one of the great domestic policy issues. By that way, that's foreign policy implications, as my colleague pointed out in his comments earlier. It's one of the great issues we face as a country, and it's helpful to help drive forward that debate.

Mr. MATHESON. Well, I thank my colleague and I want to follow up with two more of the principles. There are eight in total by the way. We've already talked about a couple. But one of the Blue Dog energy principles does have to do with climate change, and my two colleagues really have described mostly the thinking behind these principles, but to put in summary, the Blue Dog principles say, look, there's broad scientific consensus that climate change is happening. Blue Dogs also believe it's taken place over a significant period of time. We need to make sure we get this right with a methodical approach, and it may very well be a long-term approach to try to change the direction we're going, but we want to make sure we get it right. There are some folks who want to act very quickly and in a radical way, and that may not be the best solution. We also wanted to make sure we had a global approach. If we simply enact policies in this country, we may be exporting jobs and pollution overseas, and that doesn't get us to where we need to be because this is a global issue. So the Blue Dogs want to have an approach that tries to encourage global participation, an approach that does not disproportionately affect one industry or one sector. It needs to be an economy-wide approach in how we look at this issue and how we try to reduce our carbon footprint in affecting the climate change issue. So I think the Blue Dogs have laid out a framework that makes a lot of sense. Again, as I said before, we don't claim to have the answer to every single aspect of this issue. We think we've established a framework that makes a lot of sense for people making good, sound decisions. A second principle, and it really follows up on what my colleague from Louisiana said a little earlier, he was talking about how people sometimes don't know what it takes to get energy to the point where you use it. People just pull the pump at the gas station. They don't have any real appreciation for the complex process it takes to get it to that point. And that applies to all forms of energy. I think people take for granted when they flip a switch and the light goes on, that the light just goes on, and they don't have a full appreciation for what it takes to generate that electricity and get it delivered to that building or that house where the light switch exists. And so another one of the Blue Dog energy principles recognizes we need to invest in the energy infrastructure in this country. It doesn't just happen without investment. It costs money, and whether it's a refinery expansion or whether it's an ethanol plant that my colleague from Georgia was talking about that we want to develop in this country or whether it's finding renewable sources, let's say, wind energy that makes electricity, that costs money. It doesn't happen without that type of investment. It's going to take significant commitment from both the public and private sector in this country to ensure we have an energy infrastructure that can deliver reliable sources of supply and affordable sources of supply. So we need to look for those. Again, the Congress we need to look for those public policy options, public policy decisions that create the environment for that to happen. It's not going to be done all by the government, nor should it be by the way. We want the marketplace to evolve and pursue the most efficient technologies and efficient delivery systems, the most efficient ways to make this happen, but we can help set the table, if you will, to make sure we have the right incentives in our economic model to encourage that to happen. So that's another one of the Blue Dog energy principles that I think is very important, and we specifically point out within the electorate sector that we need to make sure we have investment in the transmission grid, investment in making sure it's efficient distributed generation. During the previous hour, one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle had their Special Order here just before us. I think one of my colleagues mentioned the notion that you may have a significant wind resource where you can put up a number of windmills, but it's going to go be in a remote area, and you have got to get that product, that electricity created by those wind turbines, from that remote area to where the load factor is, and that's going to be let's say in urban area that may be hundreds of miles away, and you have got to invest in a transmission system that allows that to happen. So, as I said at the start of my comments at the start of this hour, it's a complicated issue. You can mention with energy and everyone kind of nods their head, but if you really start looking at all the sub- issues below that, there are a lot of issues out there. And the Blue Dogs are trying to articulate a pragmatic, practical approach to try to capture all those issues and have a good discussion with Members of both parties and try to create those good public policy decisions to help us get to where we want to be as a country. So I wanted to again follow up on those two comments that my colleague from Louisiana mentioned, and with that I'm happy to turn over time again to Mr. Scott.

Mr. MATHESON. The gentleman mentioned that up to 16 percent of our natural gas is now being imported. When we throw out the term energy, there are all different forms of energy, and it is dangerous to look at simple policy solutions when oil policy has its own implications. We know about dependence on foreign oil, but I don't think a lot of people realize we are increasing, although not yet to the same degree, but we are increasing our dependence on foreign supplies of natural gas as well. We have seen a lot of price increases over the past 5 to 7 years in the United States, and natural gas is such a key component of our economic model in this country. Those price increases can have such damaging effects on the integrity of our economy, let alone reaching each individual, particularly those on fixed incomes. I think it is important to note, and that is the statistic that my colleague from Louisiana mentioned, we are importing natural gas into this country. I don't think a lot of people know that we are importing a lot of natural gas into this country. I want to piggyback on one other thing, short term and long term. We have talked about how in the long run we hope technology takes us into some new places. But how do we get there. We can invest in developing those technologies, but traditional energy sources that we are using in the country today, be it oil or natural gas or coal or nuclear power, those are key components of the portfolio today. And as we move ahead in the long run and look for alternative fuels, I am sure they will provide a significant piece of that portfolio as well. But in that period before that takes place, this Congress ought to enact policies that help encourage a reliable supply of those conventional fuels that we are utilizing today. It is going to be important for our economy, it is going to be important for making process as an economy, and I think that is consistent, in fact I know that is consistent with where Blue Dog energy policy recommendations have gone. I want to mention a second principle that is in this document, and that is the concept, because we are so concerned about maintaining energy security. We certainly don't want to go in the wrong direction. So we have taken our term PAYGO which is usually in the Congress in the context that if there is a new program that you want to spend money on, you have to find a way to pay for it. We have used that term in terms of Blue Dogs believe in energy PAYGO. That is we don't think that we should be enacting policies in this country that reduce existing domestic production. We are concerned because there are some policies out there by some of our colleagues in this Congress that we are concerned may do just that. That doesn't match up with the notion of trying to make sure that we have a secure, reliable, affordable energy supply. And the statistics that my colleague from Louisiana mentioned about the projected growth demand in the future in this country, you don't want to go backwards and be cut back on our existing domestic capabilities and in that context increasing even more so our reliance on foreign supplies. Another critical part of the Blue Dog principles is the notion that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. We don't want to create a greater reliance in terms of our reliance on foreign supply. And it is not just with oils. You have to put natural gas into that discussion as well because we are importing more natural gas than we have in the past, and we have to be very careful about if we reduce our natural gas production capabilities in this country, what that means in terms of prices and putting us in an even less secure, less dependent position than we are today. I yield to my colleague from Georgia.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor on Tuesday nights, as often the Blue Dog Coalition does. And tonight the Blue Dog Coalition wanted to come to the floor of the House of Representatives to have a discussion about energy policy in this country. I think that energy policy is an issue that is so important on so many levels, in terms of the integrity of our economy, in terms of our national security, in terms of the affordability for those who are underserved. It touches so many different issues. And that's why I think it's important for the Blue Dog Coalition to make its voice heard, to take on this very complicated issue that has so many different components, and to try to address it in a pragmatic and practical way. Because like so many issues in Washington, this is one that's not going to be solved by those on the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum, it is going to be solved by people who want to sit down and roll up their sleeves and come up with practical solutions on how we can provide an affordable and secure energy supply for this country. Now, I am joined by two other Blue Dogs this evening, my colleague, Mr. Scott from Georgia, and my colleague, Mr. Melancon from Louisiana. We look forward to having a discussion tonight about this issue. And the Blue Dog Coalition energy principles is a document, the Blue Dog Coalition has endorsed that identifies certain principles that we think ought to be the basis of how we go about formulating energy policy in this country. And by way of introduction, I wanted to yield as much time as he might consume right now to my colleague, Mr. Scott from Georgia.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I think the comments from the gentleman from Louisiana are spot on in the context of we need it all. We need to look at a very diverse portfolio of energy supplies in terms of where we are today and where we want to be in the future. We want to, of course, develop as many different types of energy and diversify our portfolio, because, at the end of the day, having an affordable and secure source of energy is what makes the most sense for this country and for our economy. While all of us would like to see a bunch of new technologies put in place immediately, the reality of this situation is it is going to take a commitment in the public policy arena and the private sector to bring a lot these technologies along. These energy principles that the Blue Dogs have published represent a set of guidelines. I don't think the Blue Dogs come to the table saying we have all the answers. These are complicated issues that are going to require a lot of thought and a lot of work. But I do think that these principles help articulate a zone of reasonableness, if you will, within which this debate ought to take place. Since we have kind of led into it, one of the key principles is that of fuel diversity, where the Blue Dogs think we should not be picking winners and losers, as Mr. Melancon said. We think you have to have a diverse energy supply portfolio to have future success in this country. So we encourage any policy that is going to add to fuel diversity, that is going to add to energy infrastructure in this country. In the long term, if we are going to have energy independence, there is no question that a whole basket of opportunities are going to help create that. It is going to include issues of conservation and energy efficiency. It is going to include new fuels. It may be cellulosic ethanol, it may be biofuels. There may be other sources that are alternative sources compared to what we use today. And it is also going to include conventional sources of energy that we have today as well. We have to take the longer view on this, and the longer view is at some point we may have a whole different set of energy options that don't exist today. How we get from here to there is going to take a commitment to develop those technologies and a commitment to make sure we access conventional supplies we have today to keep this economy moving in the right direction so that we can all have the economic growth and opportunity that is going to allow these technologies to develop. So, we as Blue Dogs believe in it all, whether it is oil, or gas, or biofuels, or coal, or nuclear, or hydroelectric, or geothermal, or other technologies that I may not have even mentioned. You really need to put all of that on the table, all that on the table, to give this country the opportunity to make progress and to move forward and to have a responsible, diverse energy supply. That is one of the key principles that the Blue Dogs have tried to articulate, and I think it is one that everyone in this Congress ought to be able to get their arms around in some form and see if they can recognize the value to this country if we do that. Mr. Scott, I am happy to yield to you.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my fellow Members to oppose the previous question, and I welcome my colleague from Nebraska. It has been a lonely exercise for me the last few years, and I am glad to have someone else join me on the floor and make this request, because I do think having some transparency and having accountability and having an up-or-down vote on the COLA makes a lot of sense. These are difficult times in our Nation. We are fighting terrorism on so many fronts, our economy faces some challenges, and our future budget deficits continues to be projected in the future at great levels. So I don't think this is the right time for Members of Congress to be allowing a pay raise to go through without even an up-or-down vote. We need to show the American people we are willing to make some sacrifices. We need to budget and live within our means and make careful spending decisions based on our most pressing priorities. So, Mr. Speaker, let us send a signal to the American people that we recognize there is a struggle today for some in today's economy. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to block the automatic cost-of-living adjustment to Members of Congress. Regardless of how Members feel about this issue, they should all be willing to make their position public and on the record. A ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote up or down on the COLA. If the previous question is defeated, I also would intend to offer an amendment to the rule, and my amendment would block the fiscal year 2008 automatic cost-of-living pay raise for Members of Congress. Because this amendment requires a waiver, the only way to get to this issue is to defeat the previous question. So therefore I urge Members to vote no on the previous question.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy is currently managing 206 ongoing projects and, unfortunately, the agency has a long record of inadequate management and oversight of contracts. DOE's failure to hold contractors accountable led the GAO to designate DOE contract administration and project management as a high-risk area for waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement way back in 1990. Although DOE has made some oversight improvements in the intervening years, GAO noted in reports completed this year, 17 years after the 1990 report, that major problems exist in contracting management at the agency. One quick example: On a project started in 2004 to demonstrate an alternative waste treatment technology at DOE's Hanford site, DOE officials decided to accelerate the project's schedule. As a result, the project was initiated without using key project management tools, such as an independent review of the cost and schedule baseline. After the project experienced significant schedule and technical problems and the estimated cost more than tripled to about $230 million, DOE began requiring that the project be managed consistent with its project management requirements. Furthermore, on four additional projects, estimated to cost over $100 million each, cost and schedule information was not being reported into DOE's project tracking system, resulting in less senior management oversight. My amendment would simply require DOE's Inspector General to conduct a root-cause analysis to fully understand the causes of its contract and management problems, as has been recommended by the GAO. I encourage everyone to support this amendment as a necessary first step in order to better address the contract management challenges faced by the DOE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.