Jim Matheson

Mr. MATHESON

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

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker, and I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act. This is a bipartisan, pro-consumer bill that addresses the increasing problem of scam artists faking caller ID information to defraud consumers. These bad actors scramble or spoof caller identification information for the purpose of impersonating legitimate individuals or institutions such as law enforcement officials or a bank. They then use these fraudulent identities to obtain sensitive personal information from unsuspecting consumers. Vulnerable populations such as seniors, veterans, and recent immigrants have been especially targeted by these attacks. The bill makes three important changes to strengthen existing law and protect consumers. First, it broadens current law to address spoofing in the context of international calls. Second, it changes the definition of Internet Protocol-enabled voice services to cover new forms of technology criminals have employed making Internet-based calls. Finally, the bill broadens the scope of the existing law to cover text message spoofing. These changes will make the 2009 enacted Truth in Caller ID Act a more effective tool to combat caller ID spoofing and protect consumers. Before reserving my time, I do want to commend Congresswoman Meng for her work on this issue. I want to commend Mr. Lance, and I want to also congratulate Congressman Barton for working together on this commonsense bill. Not only does the legislation enjoy bipartisan support in the House, but the sponsors have also worked very closely with Federal agencies and industry stakeholders and consumer groups to develop true consensus around this proposed legislation. This is the way this institution ought to work. I urge my colleagues to join me and support H.R. 3670, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 5161, the E-LABEL Act. This bipartisan bill will modernize the Federal Communications Commission's device certification rules by eliminating the requirement for device manufacturers to include etched labels on the outside body of each electronic device. Instead, device manufacturers will have the flexibility to display FCC certification information through software on device screens. There are numerous potential benefits to e-labeling. For example, e- labels can provide more information to consumers than is conveyed today, such as details regarding the device warranties, recycling, and trade-in opportunities. E-labeling will also lower production costs for device manufacturers since affixing labels to a device can require significant design time and expensive equipment. I would also note that we should commend FCC Chairman Wheeler and his staff in the Office of Engineering and Technology for recently taking steps to update the Commission's e-labeling policies. By working together with the FCC, we can provide innovators with more flexibility and speed the delivery of new devices in the marketplace. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Latta, for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in the support of H.R. 5161, the E-LABEL Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Pallone, for yielding me the time. H.R. 4290, the Wakefield Act, will reauthorize the Emergency Medical Services for Children program. For the past 30 years, the Emergency Medical Services for Children program has been the only Federal program focused solely on improving emergency medical care for children and adolescents. In that time, emergency care has gone from treating critically injured children simply as ``little adults,'' to providing more appropriate and specialized care as children. The program is focused on ensuring that proper emergency medical care is given to sick or injured children no matter where they live, attend school, or travel. All States and the territories receive grant funding to educate and train medical professionals in trauma care for children. This funding and training has dramatically increased the quality of care at our Nation's emergency rooms and the quality that first providers provide, and in doing so, it has saved lives. Allied to this, the program supports the coordination, collaboration, and data analysis of pediatric researchers across the country for the continued advancement of emergency pediatric care, a critical component of the program. The Emergency Medical Services for Children program has long held bipartisan support in Congress throughout its 30-year history and is certainly worthy of being reauthorized because this is a Federal program that truly works, and it has data to back that up. It has dramatically helped improve the quality of emergency medical care for our children, and this bill will ensure that it continues to do so. In closing, I want to thank both the minority and majority staffs on the Energy and Commerce Committee for working with my office on this legislation. I particularly want to thank my friend and colleague, Congressman Peter King, for introducing the bill with me. I urge my colleagues to support this critical program by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 4290.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as Chairman of the Green Schools Caucus to highlight the important contributions of the Department of Education's Green Ribbon Schools Program and to congratulate all the schools recognized as 2014 Green Ribbon Schools. This program began in 2011, and seeks to encourage schools, school districts, and institutions of higher education to adopt practices focused on sustainability, health, and environmental education. The Green Ribbon Schools Program offers awards for outstanding performance based on three categories of achievement. Schools and districts are first evaluated on the basis of success in reducing their overall environmental impact. The award also evaluates school and district strategies to improve the health and wellness of students and staff. Lastly, the Green Ribbon Schools Program examines the extent to which environmental education is offered, and whether those programs incorporate STEM subjects, civics, and green career counseling. All those recognized this year have made exceptional strides in each of these areas. Those recognized are invited to Washington, DC each year to share their experiences and discuss best practices with other leaders in the field. This process of sharing information and highlighting the achievements of individual schools and districts offers an incentive for others to work toward a common goal of a more sustainable future. It also offers the chance for school officials to compare and contrast strategies for improving curriculums, engage on ways to implement these strategies, and share their successes with others. At a time when we seek to reduce our carbon footprint, initiatives such as the Green Ribbon Schools Program are a valuable step toward lessening our impact on the environment and educating others as how best to maintain a healthy and sustainable environment. Our schools are well positioned to be leaders in the effort to combat climate change and I commend those schools and districts who have chosen to participate. Congratulations again to those who have been recognized as 2014 Green Ribbon Schools.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. I thank my ranking member for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, and I want to thank Mr. Green, my colleague, and also Mr. Upton who worked so much on this bill. Our country is on the cusp of not only becoming the world's leading energy producer, but we are also close to achieving North American energy independence with our allies to the north and south: Canada and Mexico. With this can come jobs and economic growth, greater energy security, and less uncertainty in our economy. However, unnecessarily complicated, outdated, and political roadblocks are currently in place that can encumber this progress. We should remember the current Presidential permitting process for cross- border energy infrastructure projects was developed through a series of ad hoc executive orders, which has created a high level of uncertainty for everyone involved. This bill would work to modernize and streamline the process, providing producers and consumers with a greater degree of clarity about the process. This is a process that is in desperate need of reform, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an exemplary man of faith, courage, and civic engagement. Reverend France A. Davis has served as Pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Salt Lake City for the last 40 years. He is a fixture in the community and a role model for many of its citizens. He is admired throughout the state as a man of integrity as he leads and inspires his congregation; as a man of compassion in his fair treatment of everyone--particularly those who are marginalized in society; and as a man of dedication to the university students he has taught and the civic community he leads. Born on a large farm in rural Georgia, Rev. Davis learned early the value of hard work and education while working and studying alongside his eight brothers and sisters. He was blessed with caring and humble parents who dedicated themselves to their faith and family. Recognizing the value of education, young France committed himself to reading and the pursuit of academic excellence. While attending Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, France met Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a student reporter for the school newspaper. That experience had a profound effect on him and Dr. King became a mentor. Recognizing the gross injustice of racial inequality and violence, France soon joined Dr. King in civil rights demonstrations throughout the South, including the Selma to Montgomery March and the March on Washington where Dr. King delivered his ``I Have a Dream'' speech. He was particularly moved by Dr. King's hallmark traits of nonviolence and love. It was this example that would eventually help lead him to the ministry. After his participation in the Civil Rights Movement, France served his country honorably in the United States Air Force before returning to school to resume his studies. In the years that followed, he earned six academic degrees, in Arts and Humanities, Afro-American Studies, Rhetoric, Religion, Mass Communication, and Ministry. He has approached all facets of his life and service with this same tireless devotion. Joining Calvary Baptist in 1972, he became Pastor in 1974. Beyond weekly preaching and counseling with members of his faithful congregation, he has become an advocate of numerous causes in the civic community. Among dozens of other positions, Rev. Davis has served on the Salt Lake Community College Board of Trustees, the Utah State Board of Regents, the Utah Board of Corrections, the Salt Lake NAACP Board, the Governors' Policy Council, and the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau. Under his guidance, the 122-year old church built a new 47,000 square foot home a decade ago. He has led civic and welfare organizations, is a renowned public speaker, has become a resource for the governor's and mayor's offices, and after touching hundreds of students in his years as a professor at the University of Utah, is retiring this spring. An avid reader, he is also an accomplished author of four books. Perhaps most importantly, he has served as a voice of reason and sound judgment to transcend social divisions and form bonds of understanding in the community. With his wife Willene by his side, he has raised three children and has three grandchildren and one great-grandson. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the extraordinary legacy of Rev. France A. Davis, who has been referred to as ``one of Utah's human treasures,'' and who we honor today for his 40 years of service to Calvary Baptist Church and the Salt Lake community.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring awareness to our country's rate of pancreatic cancer and the need for strong and continued medical research of this disease. This year, over 45,000 are expected to be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, a number that has steadily climbed over the past decade. While survival rates for many other forms of cancer have improved in recent years, only 6 percent of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer will live more than 5 years. That is a statistic that has not improved over 40 years. Earlier this year, I sat down with several of my constituents affected by pancreatic cancer. One in particular, Jamiee, saw her father diagnosed with the disease and then tragically die just 11 weeks after he was diagnosed. Sadly, this story is all too common when discussing pancreatic cancer. I would guess that we all know someone who has died from this disease. Sequestration cut $1.5 billion from the National Institutes of Health earlier this year. This is critical funding that would have been used to conduct research on deadly diseases such as pancreatic cancer. Everyone I talk to in my district agrees with the idea that funding medical and disease research is a good thing. We must continue research in this area and begin the process of reversing these remarkably depressing statistics with pancreatic cancer. We owe it to Jamiee and thousands of other families affected by this disease to work towards a cure.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today has two main components. We talk about the drug compounding issue and also the issue of the drug supply chain, how we can track medications through the pharmaceutical supply chain to make sure that the materials are safe and have not been subject to counterfeit medications entering that supply chain. I would like to speak primarily about the supply chain component of the bill. That component of the bill is a product of several years of work and collaboration between a number of Members on both sides of the aisle, working with, beyond Members, a lot of stakeholders--the pharmaceutical supply chain stakeholders, the Food and Drug Administration, and others. And this act, in part, is going to provide immediate steps to help strengthen our drug supply chain from counterfeiters and other bad actors. It also establishes a clear and defined path toward full electronic product-level traceability. You know, we've seen this in recent press reports. Counterfeit meds can slip into our drug supply, and it's so tempting to the counterfeiters. When you think of last year alone, the prescription drug market in the United States, Americans spent $325 billion on prescription meds. So this is a lucrative market, and it's very tempting for counterfeiters. And that's why it's so important we ensure the integrity of the drug supply chain, and this bill is going to work to do just that. The other thing that bill does is it provides some much-needed regulatory certainty for everyone in the supply chain, establishing a national uniform standard for strengthening the integrity of the supply chain. And that's important, as opposed to having each State do their own thing. Then the participants in the supply chain are going to have to do 50 different sets of rules, and that doesn't make sense. And, finally, the bill establishes a collaborative process between the FDA and the industry to establish protocols for taking this traceability where you can track the meds all the way down to the unit level. That is going to provide the ultimate level of security and certainty for consumers across America and the integrity of the drug supply chain. I want to thank so many people, but I particularly want to thank Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman for their work on this. I also would like to thank a couple of colleagues who worked on this issue before who are no longer Members of Congress, Mr. Buyer and Mr. Bilbray, who spent a lot of time; in the current Congress, Congressman Latta and Mr. Dingell as well.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Grijalva for his generosity in yielding me the time. I rise in support of H.R. 687, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. Copper is such a critical part of our economy. It is used in electronics, plumbing, cars, renewable energy. Yet, according to the latest data from the U.S. Geological Survey, the United States remains a net importer of copper, with over a third of copper consumed in this country coming from foreign sources. This piece of bipartisan legislation offers a chance to develop one of the largest undeveloped copper resources in the world. It is estimated that once fully developed, this project will produce enough copper annually to meet 25 percent of U.S. demand. It will create 3,500 high-paying jobs. The average income in this industry is over $65,000. This has been the product of a lengthy stakeholder negotiation process. It has been supported by local elected officials of both parties. I commend Mr. Gosar for his leadership on this issue and for working with Congresswoman Kirkpatrick as well. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Paulsen, if it's okay, I would like to take one more opportunity to offer a few comments on this. I wanted to make sure my colleagues on this side had a chance to speak. But I think there are a couple other points that ought to be made. This is an excise tax that's being assessed on an industry that is, by any imagination, one of these American success stories. This is an American-based industry where innovation and hard work have created this opportunity for great value for this generation. It's created great jobs, and it's also enhanced the quality of health care in this country for all of us. This is an industry we should embrace, we should be proud of. It's a poster child for American innovation. And isn't it ironic that here in the policy world, we now have a policy put in place where we say, well, let's take this industry and let's apply a special tax to it. And when this was put in the ObamaCare bill, it wasn't put in for any particular policy reason associated with this industry. It was put in to raise revenue, pure and simple. It wasn't put in for any other reason. Why we would single out this industry, to me it doesn't make sense. This is an industry that has a few very large companies in it and a number of smaller companies that are also across-the-board innovators. And when you tax, as a couple of the previous speakers have said, not profits, but when you tax sales revenue, you know, if you're a start-up company, you don't have a profit. Why would we put a 2.3 percent tax on the sales of a start-up company? This, on so many levels, is rather disturbing, when you think about it. This is an industry that already faces some challenges in terms of the regulatory approval process through the Food and Drug Administration. This is an industry that we ought to be looking at to figure out ways to allow this industry to work better, and instead, the Affordable Care Act created this additional tax. Now, this tax started this year, in 2013. Already the industry, collectively, has paid over $1 billion through July of this year. This is real money--real money. And what we're doing is we're taking an industry that, as I said, was successful and we're saying--in some respects we're giving them an incentive to move offshore. That's not what we want. We want these jobs onshore. By the way, we like them to sell their product offshore. That's another thing that hasn't been mentioned, about how powerful this industry is to the U.S. economy. This is a net exporting industry. This industry contributes in a positive way to our balance of payments with the rest of the world. We've been running a trade deficit not because of the medical device industry. They've been part of the solution to that challenge of the trade deficit. And here in the public policy world, a tax has been assessed on that industry. It just doesn't make sense. I just want to close by, once again, mentioning my admiration and appreciation for Mr. Paulsen, who's been a leader on this issue. We've got the 260 cosponsors on this bill. We've got the votes to pass it. The Senate earlier this year, during consideration of their budget resolution, in more of a symbolic vote, but on medical device tax had a bipartisan majority come together as well to suggest we should remove this tax. For all the controversy that dominates Washington today, for all the partisan bickering, for all the polarization, and for all the gridlock, here we have an issue where we all agree it's the right thing to do. I again thank my colleague for organizing this opportunity to talk about this issue tonight and, collectively, I hope we can encourage more momentum to bring this legislation up for a vote. Let's do the right thing for this economy, the right thing for the industry.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman, once again emphasizing the fact that this is one of those where we can agree in a consensus way across party lines. And I hope we can get this legislation to repeal this tax up for a vote soon. At this time, I would like to recognize my colleague from New York (Mr. Owens).

Mr. MATHESON. I appreciate my friend and colleague, Mr. Paulsen, for organizing this. I think at the outset what should be noted most is, after the House finishes its regular business of the day, we hold these opportunities for people to take 60 minutes to talk about a particular issue; and, generally, these 60 minutes are divided up where one party has an hour and then the other party has an hour. And I just think that it's really important to note that here we are talking about an issue, and it's people from both parties getting together. Everywhere I go, I hear about people wanting folks in Congress to work together; and here we have an issue where we've got, as Mr. Paulsen said, 260 cosponsors. A majority of the House of Representatives is already on the legislation to repeal the medical device tax. So I applaud his leadership in working in a constructive way and building a coalition around this issue. And I'm going to take some time a little bit later to continue talking about this issue. But if I could just for the moment, I would like to recognize my colleague Mr. Peters from California for some comments on the medical device tax.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of access to higher education. Satin Tashnizi is a freshman at the University of Utah, with aspirations of becoming a heart surgeon. As a first-generation American, Satin grew up watching both of her parents struggle to provide for her, working multiple jobs while going to school, continually reminding Satin that America is the land of opportunity. Recently, I had the privilege of sitting down with Satin and several other college students to talk about their experiences paying for college and why it is critical that Congress come together to solve the current student loan debate. As a high school student, Satin enrolled in several AP classes and graduated near the top of her class. She was accepted at her first college choice out of State; however, due to finances, Satin opted to stay in-State for school, hoping her family would have enough money to pay for medical school later on. But with interest rates on subsidized student loans set to double July 1, the chances that Satin's family can afford medical school are getting smaller. We have 16 days to reach a compromise on this matter here in Congress to help ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to reach their educational dreams.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for American students. Sierra Curian is a sophomore studying biology and chemistry at the University of Utah. Monday, I had the privilege of sitting down with Sierra and several Utah college students to talk about their experiences and why it is so important that Congress come together to solve the current student loan debate. Not surprisingly, Sierra and the other students I spoke with are very concerned about the prospect of student loan interest rates doubling on July 1. What impressed me the most was listening to the aspirations of these students, many of which I promised to share here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Sierra shared her hopes of becoming a large animal vet, hoping to specialize in equine medicine and research. Her dedication and determination toward this goal are apparent. Aside from being a full- time student, she works with large animals at a nearby clinic. Sierra, along with over 110,000 students in Utah, is relying on subsidized student loans to help pay for education. As a sophomore, she has time to choose whether to continue her schooling by pursuing a doctor of veterinary medicine degree, but she has worries about what a higher interest rate could mean if she decides to continue her schooling. Education is the key to opportunity. Our public policies should make sure everyone in America has the opportunity to pursue their dream.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Mr. Latta for his work on this issue as well. This bill before us today is a product of several years of collaboration. It's a really complicated issue, and it's important that you have a lot of collaboration to address something of this complexity. This legislation that Mr. Latta and I have introduced together will provide what I think are important steps for the security of our prescription drug supply chain from counterfeiters and other bad actors. We've seen in recent press reports about fake drugs slipping into the supply chain, so the threat of counterfeit drugs is a growing problem in this country. In fact, when you think about it, the counterfeit drug trade may be a more lucrative opportunity than the illegal drug trade, since the United States, overall, spends roughly $325 billion a year on prescription drugs. This bill is an effort to try to keep those bad actors from entering the drug supply. Since we've had some of these problems, some States have, rightly, tried to take action to deal with this. What this legislation is going to do, however, is establish more of a national standard to create some certainty for everyone in the supply chain so there's an opportunity to work effectively in a national way. Without such action, everyone in the supply chain could be forced to comply with a never-ending patchwork of different and complex State laws. That patchwork will force stakeholders to step up multiple State systems, and it could still open the door for bad actors to exploit security gaps through some States that may have weaker laws. This bill also establishes a collaborative process between the FDA and the industry in establishing protocols for unit-level traceability. The bill stipulates the FDA will hold regular meetings and conduct pilot programs with stakeholders to better inform the agency as to the feasibility of unit-level traceability and the processes needed to achieve that goal. This is critical to ensure that the unit-level traceability regulation is achievable, does not increase prescription drug costs for consumers, and ultimately protects patients from counterfeit and adulterated prescription drug products. What we do not want to see are regulations that are not technologically achievable by industry stakeholders, causing a delay in implementation, as we've seen in some States' circumstances. Now, there's no question that this legislation has been an effort of several years, and there's still perhaps some work to be done. I'm hopeful that as this legislation moves through the process, as the House and the Senate go to conference, that there are some other outstanding issues that can be addressed and we can build even greater consensus as we go to a final product that goes to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. I thank my colleague for yielding. It's a pleasure to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to discuss No Labels. You know, I think one thing that hasn't been mentioned tonight is the fact that it's about ``no labels.'' We're going to get away from Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative. This is about bringing people together to try to reach consensus and solve problems. Because when you really think about it, our political dialogue in this country has been reduced too often to this notion where there are only two points of view, only two ways to look at an issue: all Democrats think one way; all Republicans think the other. There's no other way to look at an issue. Well, as we all know, life generally is not that simple; and it's important for us to constructively come together in a way where we act as Representatives, because our system of government is not a parliamentary system where just two points of view are to be discussed. Our system of government is a representative system of government. We have 435 people in the House of Representatives who all can bring a point of view to the table to try to solve problems and make progress. That's why I'm pleased to be associated and participating with the No Labels group. I'm pleased that across the country people are signing up to join ad citizen activists for No Labels as well. It tells you where the country wants us to go as an institution--no more bickering, no more playing the blame game. Let's sit down and let's try to work together to get things done.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of an inspirational young man from my district. Mitchell Dee Jones from Herriman, Utah, passed away on March 2 of this year after a lifelong battle with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Mitch was a beloved son, brother, friend, and Latter-day Saint. He lived life to the fullest and loved others selflessly. In the very best ways, Mitch was a typical 10-year-old boy playing board games, building with Legos, four-wheeling, camping, and enjoying the outdoors in Utah with his family. His sense of humor, of adventure, and of devotion to his family touched thousands. Both in his life and in his passing, Mitch's dignity and gentleness, strength of spirit, and quiet resolve reveal his exceptional character. I hope you will join me today in honoring the life of this very special young man who brought others together, who touched lives in a profound way, and who inspired us all. Mitch's parents, Chris and Natalie Jones, have humbly shared their family's journey with our community in Utah and with countless others around the world. They opened their lives and Mitch's story so they might serve others, bringing an important awareness and a better understanding of their son's condition and that of others with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to learn more about Mitch's story and about Duchenne muscular dystrophy by following his father's Facebook journal called ``Mitchell's Journey.'' This coming Monday, on April 29, the city of Herriman, Utah, will honor Mitch's life with the recognition of Mitchell Jones Day. Here in our Nation's Capital, we can join together to do the same by familiarizing ourselves with the disease that ultimately took Mitch's life. Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a genetic muscular disorder that most often affects young boys and is characterized by a progressive muscle weakness and degeneration. It is typically diagnosed early in life and is usually fatal in the late teens or early twenties. For some, like Mitch, the disease progresses quickly and affects the voluntary muscles of limbs and torso and eventually the involuntary muscle function of the heart and lungs. As legislators, it is stories like Mitch's that should remind us of the magnitude of our decisions about time and resources. The course we chart for our country is real for families like the Joneses in every congressional district. I believe as a country we have endless potential to improve outcomes of Duchenne muscular dystrophy and so many other diseases that our children face; and I think this should be a bipartisan effort. As we work in service of our constituents, I hope we will all reflect on the Joneses in Herriman, Utah, and the priorities of real American families. These are citizens who inspire us to work harder, to do better, to solve problems, and to make a difference. Mitch's legacy is one of love and compassion of an inspiring young man who faced every challenge with bravery and faith. Here in Congress we should strive to live and serve in the same way.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4027, a bill to authorize an acre-for-acre exchange of subsurface mineral lands within the Hill Creek Extension between the State of Utah and the United States on behalf of the Ute Tribe. I really want to thank Chairman Hastings and his staff, and also subcommittee Chairman Young and his staff, Ranking Member Markey and his staff, and Ranking Member Boren and his staff for their support in moving this bill through the Natural Resources Committee. And I would also like to thank my colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who is a cosponsor of the bill. In the transaction authorized in this bill, the tribe would acquire certain State minerals in Grand County, Utah, and in exchange, the BLM would relinquish certain Federal lands in Uintah County, Utah, to the State. This bipartisan bill would give the Bureau of Land Management the authority to approve this transaction that was first proposed several years ago. In order to fully protect State and Federal interests, this legislation reserves identical overriding financial interests in each other's exchanged lands should development occur. Often in the past, these land exchanges had challenges with appraisals and making sure everyone is treated fairly. This legislation tries to address that issue looking forward. This bill is a win/win. It helps the tribe consolidate its management of land that is considered sacred and culturally significant, and at the same time, it allows for domestic energy development on land not considered environmentally sensitive that would provide more school trust fund revenue for Utah and employment for energy workers in the State as well. This legislation has broad support from local government, including Grand, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties, the State of Utah, and the Ute Tribe as well as partner agencies. The Wilderness Society also testified in support of this legislation. So I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MATHESON. This amendment would add $9.6 million to the Department of Energy's nondefense environmental cleanup account, thereby restoring the amount that was cut from the previous year for the small sites associated with this program. This will be offset by taking money from the National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons activities account, which in this bill right now has an increase of just over $298 million relative to last year. The funding for the small sites in the nondefense environmental cleanup accounts supports activities across the country that address the legacy resulting from civilian nuclear energy research and uranium mining, and it is critical that the Department of Energy have the resources necessary to meet its obligation to clean contaminated sites across the country in a timely manner. I know it's tough to come up with these appropriations bills, and I think the committee has done a nice job of trying to balance many things. I acknowledge and I support the increase in funding for the NNSA weapons modernization efforts. I believe that directing a small portion of the $298 million increase over the FY 12 levels towards cleanup of small sites around the country is worth consideration here today. This is not an attack of the work of the NNSA, but rather an amendment to increase the efficiency of the small-site cleanup effort undertaken by the Department of Energy. The $9.6 million represents a fraction of 1 percent of the total funding of NNSA weapons activities that will be received in this bill. I think we want to do this funding and maintain this funding because it ensures the progress of these sites can continue. Let's remember these small sites are shovel-ready projects directly employing hundreds of people at various sites across the country. While this is for all sites, I'll talk about one location of which I'm familiar because it's in my congressional district, near Moab. It's a site that at one point had 16 million tons of radioactive material. It's on the banks of the Colorado River. During an environmental impact statement review it was determined that it was with an absolute certainty that at some point, if this pile is not moved, a flood event will flush this downstream. There are roughly 25 million users downstream of the Colorado River in Nevada, Arizona, and southern California. What I find interesting is if we're looking to reduce funding for these small projects, we end up increasing the proportion of what's left for fixed costs, for administrative costs. In the case of the project in Utah, the contract that was just let by the Department of Energy, 25 percent of all moneys were just on administrative costs; and that means that we're spending a significant portion not moving material. The thing about these small projects is there is an end in sight. We can get this done. We can knock this project out if we aggressively fund it, and I think on a lifecycle basis you actually are spending less taxpayer dollars if we adequately fund these small sites. My concern about funding of small-site remediation is not unique to me. In fact, the committee in its own report of this bill on page 100 mentions this issue about small sites. It says: The committee remains concerned about the lack of remediation activity taking place around the country at various Department-sponsored facilities and small sites classified as under the responsibility of the Department. So I know we all care about this. I know we do. I'm just trying to point out, at least in my State we have one of these sites whereby shrinking of the funding I think we extend the life of this project for more years. I think we'll end up spending more taxpayer dollars on a life-cycle basis at the project as a result, and I would submit that it merits consideration to see if we can do this small plus-up in the environmental cleanup account for small sites. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for offering this motion and I thank him for yielding me this time. We've heard a lot from different Members out here already about what the construction of this pipeline would mean in terms of increased capacity, of product coming from North American sources for U.S. oil consumption. We've heard about the jobs for the construction of the pipeline, and I'm not going to repeat all of those numbers and statistics. But I thought it would be helpful to talk about a couple of the issues that have been raised about this pipeline and try to clarify some of the facts about what's going on with this type of product and this type of pipeline. A lot of people think this is a brand new product. They're worried about product from oil sands. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, there are already five other pipelines that are bringing this product from Canada to the United States. In fact, for years this product has been coming to refineries in the State of Utah, where I'm from, and refined in refineries in North Salt Lake. The most recent of those five pipelines that brings this product from Canada was actually approved by the Obama administration in 2009. It brings 800,000 barrels a day from Canada into the United States. And when that project was approved by the Obama administration's State Department, the State Department said that the pipeline would send: A positive economic signal in a difficult economic period about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States' energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States. Now, when it comes to the Keystone proposal, as it was going through 3 years of environmental review, when discussing this pipeline, Secretary Clinton's Coordinator for International Energy Affairs, David Goldwyn, stated: Balancing jobs and energy security . . . I think the case for a pipeline is overwhelming and she will approve it. This is a project that has received a lot of scrutiny. It's not a new type of project--five other ones come to this country. I know there may be some unique aspects of this specific pipeline proposal, but in general there are five other ones that bring this product to the United States already. This has become a symbol. We can have honest disagreements about what we think about issues, but we should make sure we understand what the facts are about this pipeline. As I said, this product has already come into this country many times. I thank the gentleman again for offering this motion to recommit, and I urge passage.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Chair, I stand in strong support of this amendment, as I do to the underlying bill. The amendment before us will provide much-needed liability protections to medical professionals to ensure that they are able to do what they are trained to do, which is save lives. As Mr. Stearns indicated, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it became clear that a uniformity of Good Samaritan laws is needed in this country. In several instances, qualified and certified physicians and other medical professionals from across the country were turned away from providing much-needed and critical care to victims of this disaster even when it was plainly apparent that the medical resources in the communities that were affected by the disaster were far beyond the capacity to provide adequate emergency care. Yet doctors from Utah who volunteered to provide emergency care in situations such as this shouldn't fear unnecessary lawsuits and, above all else, should not be turned away due to uncertainty about liability protections. I want to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Stearns, for his work and his partnership on this amendment. This commonsense measure to provide sensible protections to those Good Samaritans who volunteer their medical services to help those struck by disaster is an amendment we should all support. I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan amendment.