Jim Matheson

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because several worthy amendments to this bill were not ruled in order for consideration, including my own amendment that I offered, which was an amendment that was very simple. It said, if this country is going to resume the testing of nuclear weapons, it would first have to be authorized to do so by Congress. I think Congress, the people's Representatives, ought to be involved in such a significant decision. This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue about having the people's Representatives involved. The United States did conduct over 900 nuclear weapons tests at the Nevada test site from 1951 until 1992, and during most of this time, people who lived downwind of the test site were not warned about the adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure. What is not widely known is that the fallout from weapons testing traveled across the entire country. Studies by the National Cancer Institute concluded that people in every single county in the lower 48 States were exposed to fallout. A moratorium on nuclear weapons testing was instituted in 1992, but recent funding decisions in the appropriations process by Congress are leading us down the path to renewed nuclear testing and, therefore, as far as I am concerned, it is important that the people's Representatives, the United States Congress, ought to be asked to come up for a vote on whether or not we should resume nuclear testing. This amendment was not ruled in order and, therefore, I encourage all my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, tonight I am introducing legislation to assist a number of soldiers across the nation, based on stories I heard from Reservists in my home state of Utah. These Reservists served honorably in U.S. operations in Afghanistan over the past few years. Over two separate activations, they served 24 months on active duty in the Marine Corps. When they finally returned home, it was to find out that they fell under a loophole within the Montgomery GI Bill. They were ineligible for educational benefits for Reservists, because while they served the requisite 24 months on active duty, their service was not consecutive. I think that at a time when our nation and our military is increasingly relying upon Reservist contributions for extended periods of time, Reservists have certainly earned the same educational benefits that they would be entitled to if their service had been for 24 straight months. As a result, my legislation will change the criteria for Montgomery GI Bill eligibility to include at least 2 years of cumulative active duty service over a period of 5 continuous years. It will apply to Reservists activated between 9/11 and the end of 2006, in order to accommodate those who are serving honorably in Afghanistan and Iraq. I truly thank the Marine Corps Reservists of Fox Company for bringing this issue to my attention, and for their service to this great Nation.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, this week, we honor the dedicated service of law enforcement officers across America as law enforcement officers and their families will participate in the 16th Annual Candlelight Vigil at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial located in Washington, DC and other events that recognize and honor the work and sacrifice of officers throughout the country. The memorial is a monument of remembrance that has the names of 14,000 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty engraved on its surface. In my home state of Utah, we are particularly fortunate to have a number of dedicated individuals working to protect our citizens. These days, we all tend to focus on the armed forces, which are obviously a critical element of national defense. But it is also important to remember those on the front lines here at home. Local law enforcement officers need Congress' help to ensure that our streets stay safe for law-abiding citizens. That's why I support both the COPS grants and Byrne grants. I think that one of the best things the federal government can do for local law enforcement is to provide the tools for police officers to best carry our their duties. Every single day, acts of heroism and valor are performed by police officers across our nation. We have made tremendous progress in terms of crime prevention and crime solving, but we need to remember that there are only so many available law enforcement officers at a given time. As our society grows, the demands placed on these individuals have also increased tremendously. The falling crime rate has largely benefited urban and suburban areas, so it is important to remember our rural constituencies also need our help in fighting crime. Officer safety and the ability to investigate major crimes are often compromised by a lack of resources in rural areas. One of the local police chiefs in a small town in my district recently told me that his main concern at home is not Al Qaeda infiltrating the town--it's making sure that the middle school down the streets is drug free and safe. I truly thank the members of law enforcement across this nation for their service and I commit to working in support of both homeland security and domestic security.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I was outraged by the images of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. These abuses harm U.S. interests in Iraq and the efforts of the coalition forces to foster stability in the region. It is unfortunate that the actions of a few have undermined the hard work and sacrifice of the thousands of men and women who have served in Iraq with honor and integrity. The provisions of the Geneva Convention protect American soldiers when they are captured in battle. As a result, it is very important to ensure that we do not abuse prisoners of war in our keeping. I believe that a prompt and thorough investigation of this matter is necessary and the individuals who were involved should be appropriately punished. I will strongly encourage both my colleagues in Congress and the President to disavow these acts and to prevent any similar transgressions in the future.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues this afternoon speaking in favor of H. Res. 605. H. Res. 605 is an important step to raise national awareness about autism by designating the month of April as National Autism Month. In addition, H. Res. 605 recognizes the prevalence of autism, the need to support programs for research and treatment of autism, and the importance of improving training and support for individuals with autism and their caregivers. Autism is a debilitating developmental disability affecting the ability of individuals to communicate and interact with others. It is estimated that 1 of every 166 children in the United States has an autism spectrum disorder. In my home state of Utah, it is estimated that 4 in every 10,000 children have autism spectrum disorders. However, statistics on the prevalence of autism can be difficult to obtain. Registries are relatively new and voluntary, hindering the collection of this data. But, efforts to record the incidence of autism are an important step in raising awareness and unlocking this developmental disorder. Important efforts are being undertaken in Utah, through the Utah Registry of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, to determine and monitor the number of children in Utah with autism. This identification process is an important first step in raising awareness, quantifying need, and creating the necessary networks to provide adequate support. Autism is best treated when diagnosed early. Usually, diagnosis occurs within the first three years of life. Improving awareness does not just mean counting people, it means identifying children with autism early, by ensuring that primary care providers are aware of the signs of autism. Early identification can assist in earlier access to appropriate treatment for these children, and early intervention can improve the long-term outcomes. In addition, expanding awareness is about training and services, both for children, their families, and their caregivers and educators. Too often children with autism do not receive the highly trained, skilled services that they need. Autism can overwhelm both the child and those who must care for them without adequate preparation or support. Improving professional development, support networks, and assistance available to the caregivers of individuals with autism is critical. It is necessary to adequately fund and support special education and train specialized teachers. It is also critical to recognize the potential that individuals with autism can have when provided with appropriate educational opportunities and employment training. With these on-going interventions and supports, individuals with autism can achieve their fullest potentials. Finally, increasing awareness must involve greater focus on research related to autism. It must include research into causes, treatments, and even potential cures. Autism is a complex challenge that requires some of the best scientific and medical attention our nation has to offer. Federal support for research on autism has been growing, but additional efforts will be critical in finding the answers to the many questions that autism poses. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to recognize the courage and the commitment of the individuals, families, and professionals for whom autism is a reality of daily life. They are truly committed to caring and making progress, and I am happy to support them in this effort to increase the national awareness of autism.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, some of my constituents who are currently serving in Iraq with the 419th Transportation Company learned that their deployment would be extended. These Army Reservists and their unit have already served with great distinction since March of 2003. Their families and loved ones are understandably concerned that these soldiers will not return home this week, as was originally planned, but instead will remain in Iraq. The continued turmoil in Iraq obviously calls on greater sacrifices from members of the Armed Forces, but what is of particular concern is that these soldiers may not be adequately equipped for their mission. Though all members of the 419th have body armor, it has been reported to me that none of their vehicles have been armored. Given that this unit may travel along dangerous and challenging routes in southern and central Iraq, armored plating on all vehicles is not only common sense but it is imperative. Congress has provided many defense resources via the appropriations process, as well it should; and it was my understanding that this funding was to ensure that all soldiers have body armor and armored vehicles. If not, I would hope that the Department of Defense would be quick to ask for additional support from the Congress, as I am certain that providing the best possible tools for soldiers in theater is of paramount priority for many in Congress, like myself. I am well aware of the current demands faced by American soldiers and the sacrifices made by family members and loved ones. American soldiers have always excelled in their military duties at a time when many of our troops are deployed for a year or more. I think it is imperative that Congress and the Federal Government adequately provide for them.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I concur with many of the previous comments about the need for greater investment than what this legislation calls for, but this is such an important step. I also rise to praise the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the leadership of this committee. They have operated in the great tradition of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, working together to pursue a bipartisan outcome. I am proud to be associated with this committee because of that type of leadership. I think everyone in Congress could take a good cue from taking a look at the behavior exhibited by leadership of this committee. This is a program that represents an investment. People talk about whether this is increased spending or whatnot. The reality is when we spend money on infrastructure, we are investing. We are investing in good jobs, and we are investing in our economy. And in an increasingly globalized world where we feel the pressures of globalization and competition from around the world, the notion of investing in our own transportation infrastructure and making our economy more efficient in the way we move people and the way we move products seems to be all the more compelling in our current circumstances. That is what this legislation helps to do. There are significant and important needs in this country to invest in this type of infrastructure to allow our economy to realize those efficiencies, to put the United States in a better position to compete with the rest of the world. We hear so much these days about job loss. We hear so much about outsourcing. We hear so much about globalization. Vote for this bill today because it puts us on a path to take on those issues. I wish we were at the higher number, a majority of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I suspect, wishes we were at that number as well. But this is an important first step and the legislation will give us opportunities in the future to address adjusting that level of investment in the future. But today is the day, with this bill in front of us. I encourage all of our colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, as a longtime supporter of the military, I was dismayed to learn that U.S. troops were forced to pay their way home from Baltimore-Washington International Airport, while on rest and recuperation leave. Late last year, Congress enacted legislation, which I supported, requiring the Department of Defense to provide travel and transportation allowances to military personnel serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As of December 19, 2003, the Department began covering these costs. Unfortunately, a number of soldiers who were issued leave beginning on September 25, 2003 were not eligible for travel reimbursement. Today, the Congress has rectified this discrepancy by ensuring that all of our soldiers will be reimbursed for their travel while on leave. I am well aware of the current demands faced by American soldiers and the sacrifices made by family members and loved ones. American soldiers have always excelled in their military duties and at a time when many of our troops are deployed for a year or more, it is imperative that Congress and the federal government adequately provide for them.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate today and there have been a couple of items that I think deserve some comment. We have heard a lot of misinformation, in my opinion, about industrial loan companies. I think it is important that this Congress needs to go through an exercise in education about these institutions to learn about what they are and what they are not, and I want to address some of those things. First of all, some people seem to think there is a lack of regulation; that ILCs are unregulated. That is not true. The FDIC regulates ILCs in the same manner as other State nonmember institutions. ILCs are subject to the FDIC safety and soundness regulations, as well as Federal consumer protections. How about another thing that I often hear that I believe is a myth about this subject; that ILCs pose a threat to the safety and soundness of the national banking system. The fact is, overall, it is the FDIC's view that the ILC charters pose no greater safety and soundness risk than other charter types. Another misconception out there about ILCs. Some people seem to think that ILCs may allow for inappropriate mixing of banking and commerce. The fact is, as the FDIC has said, they do not believe that the potential for conflict is any greater for ILCs than for other FDIC- insured institutions operating in a holding company structure. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), is submitting a letter that was written by Chairman Powell from the FDIC that will provide greater expansion on those particular thoughts. I voted for this bill when it came out of committee. I supported the regulatory relief bill, and I still think many components of the underlying bill are very good and positive. I am concerned about the components of the manager's amendment that tend to place restrictions on the branching capabilities of industrial loan companies. Now, you will hear a lot of people, in the earlier debate on the rule and whatnot, saying these provisions do not go far enough; that we need greater restrictions. I want to point out there is another point of view, which is that I think these go too far. I do not think it is helpful. I think it is important we should talk about just what ILCs mean to this country, just so people will know. Industrial loan banks are FDIC-regulated depository institutions. And, yes, they are chartered in five different States. There are more than 50 industrial loan banks in operation. They have been in operation for many years. They are subject to the same banking laws and are regulated in the same manner as other depository institutions. They are supervised and examined both by the States that charter them and by the FDIC. They are subject to the same general safety and soundness, consumer protection deposit insurance, Community Reinvestment Act, and other requirements that apply to other FDIC-insured depository institutions, and they have an exemplary record in serving the communities in which they operate. Industrial loan banks have already been subject to the same rules regarding interstate branching as other banks. And although they have rarely used this authority, these banks have been authorized to open branches by acquisition, where State laws allow. Most owners of industrial loan banks are exempted from the Bank Holding Company Act regulation through a specific provision added to the Bank Holding Company Act in 1987. This is neither a loophole nor a particularly unique provision. Similar Bank Holding Company Act exemptions apply to many institutions not owned by other companies, and to financial institutions that do not offer a full range of banking services, such as credit card banks, Edge Act banks, grandfathered ``nonbank banks,'' grandfathered ``unitary thrifts,'' and trust banks. These exemptions benefit bank customers. They introduce additional competition into the marketplace without increased risk to the deposit insurance system. As I said earlier, some people will claim that these industrial loan banks are unregulated. That is just not true. They are subject to many of the same requirements as bank holding companies, such as strict restrictions on transactions with their bank affiliates. They are regulated under State law and are subject to examination by the FDIC and to prompt corrective action and capital guarantee requirements if the banks they control encounter financial difficulties. These tools, in the words of FDIC Chairman Donald Powell, allow the FDIC to manage the relationships between industrial loan banks and their parents ``with little or no risk to the deposit insurance funds, and no subsidy transferred to the nonbank parent.'' I think that it is important to note that what we are talking about here is choices. We have heard about, oh, these are only chartered in 5 States and that is to the detriment of 45 other States. This is about American consumers being given more choices; more choices and more efficiency in our economy. We should not be afraid of competition. There are various interest groups out there that are going to oppose ILCs. And I think they oppose them because they are saying, oh, gee, we are disadvantaged. I think they are trying to protect an advantage. Competition is good. Competition is a good thing in our country and in our economy here. It is something I would advocate for. And I think the people have been well served in the many years in which ILCs have been in existence, and I think that businesses and consumers will continue to be served in all 50 States by the benefits of the services that industrial loan companies provide. So as I said at the outset, a lot of things have been said. I think there is a lot of confusion about what ILCs are and are not. I have tried to walk through some of the fundamental comments that have been made that raise concern for me, and I would also suggest that this manager's amendment, which is a purported compromise, is not necessarily something that I agree with. I think it goes too far in being restrictive, and I think that it gives me concerns for a bill that otherwise passed through committee with very little controversy.

Mr. MATHESON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. MATHESON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Iowa. We have had discussions about this in the past and we tend to take a little bit different point of view on this issue. But I do appreciate his mentioning some actions that are taking place within the European Union. Financial owners of industrial loan banks may very well soon be subject to further regulation, and holding company supervision will be driven by the European Union mandate that institutions doing business there be subject to consolidated holding company supervision. It is my understanding the Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed a consolidated supervisory regime for holding companies predominantly engaged in securities business. I do acknowledge that there are some other actions taking place to address this holding company issue and I am glad the gentleman raised that point. That being said, I guess I would just repeat one more time that I do believe that these are entities where, according to the Federal agency that regulates them now, the FDIC, they do not see any relationship in terms of, substantive, between the holding company and the bank component of the business.

Mr. MATHESON. I appreciate those comments. I would just say I understand there is a difference between the FDIC and the Federal Reserve and there is a difference on this particular issue. I just want to point out that this is not just an ILC issue, though. There are other entities that are also not regulated by the Federal Reserve.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, today I announce the introduction of legislation called the Safety for Americans From Nuclear Weapons Testing Act. Let me describe the history and the events that have led me to the introduction of this legislation. Our country began open-air testing of nuclear weapons in 1951. Between 1951 and 1992, over 1,000 weapons tests took place, over 100 above ground and over 800 below ground as well. Now, what is interesting about this is the government told the citizens of this country that the testing was safe. And I, like a lot of people in Utah, have roots in southern Utah, and my relatives live in southern Utah. They said it was safe too. I remember my dad telling me how people would wake up and watch the sky light up in the morning from the tests. People in southern Utah take a back seat to no one when it comes to their patriotism and their support of a strong national defense. What is unfortunate in this story is that the government lied. They lied to the people in southern Utah. They lied to anyone who was down wind of the fallout from the nuclear testing. In fact, the government knew they were putting people at risk. They kept that information quiet. It was not until the early 1980s that documents in the Pentagon were declassified that showed that in fact the government only conducted the testing when the wind blew the fallout in the least populated direction, which happened to be southern Utah. Now, a lot of people say, Wait a minute. We used to have those above- ground tests, but now they are below ground. This is an underground test right here. This was in 1970. This was an underground test. The dust and debris went 10,000 feet into the atmosphere. So the notion that underground testing is in and of itself safe, I think a picture is worth more than a thousand words. Now, what happened in Utah is rates of cancer are much higher than elsewhere in southern Utah. Ultimately, the government admitted culpability when Congress passed something called the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which provided monetary compensation to individuals who happened to be living in certain counties that received high amounts of fallout from nuclear testing. Yes, the government ultimately did admit its culpability. Why am I talking about introducing this legislation today? Because Congress in the past year has taken some actions that are taking us down the path to renewal of nuclear testing of the Nevada test site. Since 1992 there has been a moratorium on testing. Congress voted in the last year to remove what is called the Spratt First Amendment which prevented development of new nuclear weapons. Congress also in its appropriations process voted to move ahead in funding of the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. And development of a new generation of nuclear weapons to me means we are going down the path to additional nuclear testing. That is why I have introduced this bill. Now, you can say that this bill is important just because of its impact in the West and particularly in Utah, but this is not just a Western issue. This is a national issue. It turns out when we studied one of the significant isotopes from previous testing, Iodine 131, and showed the concentrations in each county; every county in the lower 48 States had concentrations of Iodine 131. Interestingly enough, if you look at this map, you will notice you have some counties up here in New York and Vermont that had higher concentrations than some counties in southern Utah. This once again from the National Cancer Institute demonstrates that fallout from nuclear testing is a national issue. It should be an issue of national concern. That is why I have introduced today the Safety for Americans From Nuclear Weapons Testing Act. Let me describe what the act does. First of all, it would require before any testing happens that the Federal Government conduct a full national environmental policy act review to assess health, safety and environmental impacts prior to conducting nuclear weapons testing. It requires congressional authorization prior to the possible resumption of nuclear weapons testing as well. If those steps are completed, it would require 1 week's public notice prior to any test, and it is going to require much more extensive monitoring for potential releases of radiation beyond the Nevada test site. It would require the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor radiation levels. But it is not just going to be the government that will be doing the monitoring because the legislation also provides for a grant program for universities, particularly across all the hot zones demonstrated by where Iodine 131 had gone, so we will have independent third-party monitoring to look for radiation releases as well throughout the country. The legislation says that if any radiation travels beyond the Nevada test site, then the U.S. must cease further nuclear weapons testing until Congress would vote to reauthorize such testing. The legislation creates the National Center for the Study of Radiation and Human Health. It would be a regional consortium of universities that will study the health effect of radiation exposure, radiation-linked illnesses, and other related research illness. Finally, the legislation requires the National Cancer Institute to provide human dose estimates for Americans for all radionuclides and all human organs produced by previous weapons tests. And a report would be provided to Congress and the public within 3 years. In fact, only one isotope has been studied by the National Cancer Institute. It is an important bill for all this country. I encourage my colleagues to join me for providing safety for Americans from nuclear weapons testing.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, as Utah copes with its most severe drought in recent times, protecting our native species from invasive plants is vital to both agriculture and the environment. It is important to those of us in the West to take those steps necessary to stop non-native species from consuming our precious water resources. Throughout the development of the West, we have maintained a healthy and vibrant balance between our economic and residential needs and the needs of our native plants and animals. The tamarisk threatens that balance. For this reason, I support H.R. 2707--The Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act. This bill has particular meaning to me and to my constituents, because of the efforts it promotes to eradicate tamarisk. Overall, experts estimate the economic impact of invasive species in the U.S. to be over $100 billion annually. Scientists have calculated that tamarisk plants soak up an estimated 2-4 million acre-feet of water per year in the West. A single plant can absorb up to 300 gallons of water a day through a taproot that can reach down 50 feet into the water table. Tamarisk, originally introduced by settlers trying to control stream bank erosion, is inedible to most animals and is notoriously difficult to kill. Even when it's burned, it generates new shoots. This plant's effects are particularly devastating in our state and in our neighboring states, and so I have worked on the Science Committee to create new opportunities to combat tamarisk. This bill is an important step towards eradicating the threat that tamarisk poses in Utah and other Western states, and I will continue to support it and other legislation which furthers our battle to remove this threat.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of John Stockton, one of the greatest basketball players in the history of the sport. I would like to thank the leadership and the committee for their consideration of this bipartisan resolution, which I had the honor of introducing along with my colleague from Washington, Mr. Nethercutt. John Stockton and his nineteen years with the Utah Jazz are forever linked in the memories of countless fans, both in my home state of Utah and throughout the nation. Stockton's outstanding career and the example he set for young people in this country did us all proud. When Stockton announced his retirement at the end of the 2002-2003 season, tens of thousands of fans attended a celebration in his honor at the Delta Center in Salt Lake City last June. Not only were they celebrating his achievements as a player, these fans turned out to thank John Stockton for his loyalty to the Utah Jazz in an era dominated by free agency. As the all-time leader in assists in the NBA's history, John Stockton always put his team first. He was also the league's all-time leader in steals, ending his career with an amazing 3,265 steals and he was selected in 1996 as one of the 50 Greatest Players in National Basketball Association History.' John Stockton gave fans everywhere someone to emulate both on and off the basketball court, especially those in his dual hometowns, Salt Lake City, Utah and Spokane, Washington. Stockton's commitment to his family, to the community, and to the states of Utah and Washington are to be commended and honored.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Donald A. Duff, of Salt Lake City, who is retired after forty-three years of Federal service on January 2, 2004. His abiding love of this country began at the age of seventeen during his service as a seasonal postal carrier in northwest Washington, DC. In 1959, Mr. Duff enlisted in the United States Air Force, following in the footsteps of relatives who have served this nation in every conflict since the Revolutionary War. He also comes from a long line of relatives with close ties to our capital city including a great-great- grandfather who assisted Pierre L'Enfant in laying out the streets of Georgetown and a great-grandfather who grew the first American Beauty Rose in the White House garden. Mr. Duff's father also served as an Admiralty lawyer, working with Presidents McKinley and Franklin Roosevelt to establish merchant marine laws. The U.S. Congress and the Maritime Commission recognized his work by naming in his honor a WWII Liberty Ship, the ``S.S. Edwin H. Duff.'' Mr. Duff served the Air Force Strategic Air Command Headquarters as a photo intelligence specialist, analyzing satellite and U2 photography during the Cold War. In 1962, he made the initial confirmation of a Russian missile in the Havana harbor that ultimately led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Mr. Duff also distinguished himself as a wildlife and fisheries biologist in the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management. These agencies, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Fisheries Society, and Trout Unlimited have recognized him, for his expertise in conserving native fishes and in river restoration. He was a member of America's first fisheries scientific exchange with the Republic of Ireland in 1989. In the ensuing years, he developed a management plan for restoration of Ireland's salmon species. Ireland was later awarded 19 million pounds from the European Union for this restoration, and Mr. Duff served as the chief external advisor from 1995-2000, restoring over 200 miles of salmon-bearing rivers and habitats. He has been instrumental in providing similar assistance to other European and Asian countries during his career. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Duff's achievements on the occasion of his retirement.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Mr. C. Booth Wallentine of Utah on the occasion of his retirement from the Utah Farm Bureau Federation. Booth has spent 41 years working for the Utah and Iowa Farm Bureaus, the last 31 of those years he has served as the Utah Farm Bureau Federation's CEO. I first heard about Booth's efforts on behalf of our state's agricultural interests when he worked with my father when he served as governor of Utah. I have been privileged to have the same opportunity to work with Booth, and he has been an invaluable asset to me in learning about Utah's agriculture industry. Since being elected to Congress, I have been impressed with Booth's tireless efforts to advocate on behalf of agriculture and rural issues. His work and dedication on behalf of Utah's farmers and ranchers has made a real difference across the state of Utah, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for championing these issues on behalf of our state. He has been involved in so many efforts over the years, and it is difficult to imagine discussions about agriculture policy in Utah without Booth's participation. I wish Booth and his family well in his retirement. I know he will continue to be involved in public service, and I look forward to working with him on his future endeavors.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of the military, I am pleased to support this legislation, which enhances veterans health care. I am especially pleased that this bill also honors George E. Wahlen, Utah's only living Medal of Honor winner. George Wahlen is a dedicated American and Utah is proud to pay tribute to his service by renaming the Salt Lake Veterans Affairs Medical Center in his honor. George Wahlen's twenty-year service to this nation as a soldier was not his only contribution. Even now, he continues to serve as an advocate for both active troops and veterans. I am proud to honor this patriot, just as I am proud of all Americans who serve their country.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Healthy Forests bill. This legislation will help restore Utah's forests that have been devastated by fire, drought, and insect infestations. I am hopeful that this legislation will prevent a repeat of this year's severe wildfire season and stop fires from spreading so quickly and affecting our communities. This legislation focuses its resources on hazardous fuel reduction efforts close to home by prioritizing efforts to prevent fires within a mile and a half of at-risk communities. This bill also provides grants for states and local communities to perform the fuel reduction activities that will benefit them the most. Not only will this legislation help prevent forest fires, but it will address the infestation of the bark beetle that has affected much of southern Utah. This bill requires the Forest Service to develop a plan to combat insect infestation and allows for the expedition of projects that would help eliminate this problem that has turned Cedar Mountain in the Dixie National Forest into a skeleton of what it once was. The passage of this bill is critical to protecting the health of the forests in Utah and throughout the West. We've seen too much devastation and damage in recent years to allow the situation to go unchanged. I am committed to this legislation as an important first step toward remediating our forests.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 3140, the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act. I am pleased to have been an original cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation. It simply does the right thing for consumers. This legislation will require eye doctors and optometrists to provide patients with a copy of their prescription for contact lenses, regardless of whether or not the patient asks for that copy. And the bill also requires that these prescribers to verify and provide a copy of the prescription to any person designated by the consumer to act on their behalf, such as third-party sellers. What many people may not know, is that eye doctors have been required to provide patients with a copy of their prescriptions for eyeglasses since 1978, but the same requirement for some reason has not been in place for contact lens prescriptions. Today, with around 36 million Americans wearing contact lenses, ensuring that consumers are able to obtain their contact lens prescriptions and make a choice in where they purchase their contact lenses is simply the right thing to do. I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to two provisions in this energy and water conference report. First, this bill provides $7.5 million for study of a new-generation, earth-penetrating nuclear warhead and $6 million for research on advanced nuclear weapons concepts such as low-yield mini nukes. Supporters of these new nuclear weapons argue the current funding is limited to weapons research and development in DOE labs, but this argument ignores the obvious end results of these studies, and that is that they will have to be tested. These weapons will be tested most likely at the Nevada test site. That will once again expose Utah and the rest of this Nation to fallout from those tests. High-yield weapons present an additional problem, unacceptable amounts of fallout would endanger U.S. troops approaching the target to confirm the weapons' success. No one is going to argue about pursuing new technologies to address the threats posed by terrorists hiding in hardened or deeply-buried sites, but we should ask and answer this question about whether nuclear weapons, regardless of yield, can even get the job done. I oppose this bill that would once again move toward exposing Utahans to nuclear testing in Nevada. That brings me to a second point I also raise in opposition to the bill, and that is there is a provision that would reclassify radioactive waste from two Department of Energy sites as a type of waste that can be shipped to commercial facility. This language was included in the conference report without the knowledge of States like Utah that had commercial facilities where the DOE has suggested shipping such highly-concentrated radioactive waste. This waste has much higher radioactive levels than other radioactive waste that commercial facilities are currently regulated to accept under this classification. This is unacceptable to Utah, and I am fundamentally opposed to language that makes Utah into a dumping ground not only for waste from Ohio and New York, but waste from other east coast States as well. Some Members argue this waste is not that bad. Mr. Speaker, if the waste is not that bad, then Ohio and New York should not be in such a rush to get rid of it. Utah has a history on this issue, a history of being downwinders. My family comes from southern Utah. I would not put Utah into a back seat to anyone when it comes to their patriotism and commitment to this country, but we need to make sure when we move ahead and potentially expose our citizens to radiation, that we make sure we make these decisions in the clear light of day, and we look out for the health and safety of all Americans.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act. I believe that our country needs a balanced, comprehensive national energy policy that promotes short-term and long-term solutions. We need to increase our energy supplies in an environmentally responsible manner, improve energy infrastructure, and invest in research and development. In the short term, we need more supply, more conservation and energy efficiency, and additional transmission lines and pipelines. But equally as important, a forward- thinking, long-term energy strategy requires a strong commitment to the research and development of current and future energy sources and energy-efficient technologies. My support for this bill is based on these principles; however, I am extremely disappointed that a provision was inserted in conference that would reclassify radioactive waste from Ohio and allow it to be shipped to Utah. I strongly oppose this provision and I will do everything in my power to ensure that this waste is not dumped on Utah.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong supporter of the military and I'm well aware of the unconventional war we face against terrorists. However, I continue to oppose the nuclear weapons related provisions in this year's defense authorization bill. No one is arguing about the need to find new technologies with which our nation can combat deeply buried targets, particularly those held by terrorists. At issue is whether Congress needs to resort to repealing the Spratt-Furse prohibition on nuclear weapons development and encouraging the production of new weapons. There is a disconnect in the federal government between weapons development and the realistic application of nuclear weapons. Advocates of new nuclear weapons see them as just another tool in the War on Terror, without realizing nuclear weapons work best as a deterrent, not as first-use weapons. Supporters of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and new nuclear weapons, argue that the current authorization language is strictly limited to weapons research and development in Department of Energy labs. This claim ignores the obvious end result of weapons development--weapons design does not occur in a vacuum. In order for our soldiers to use nuclear weapons in combat, these weapons must first be physically tested, most likely at the Nevada Test Site. The federal government's poor record on weapons testing and containment of fallout is lengthy and disappointing, at best. Like many Utahns, I come from a family of downwinders. My father, as well as other loved ones, developed terminal cancer after he was exposed to radiation from Cold War nuclear weapons tests conducted by the federal government. I do not believe that we should even consider a resumption of nuclear weapons testing when rational alternatives have not been fully explored. I have already seen too many Americans succumb to then-unforeseen consequences of weapons testing. Advances in containment technology are certainly possible, however, the current circumstances do not lend themselves to a resumption of nuclear weapons testing and I will do everything in my power to avoid that end result.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention to the issue of national debt. It has been 874 days since this administration came into office. During that time, the national debt has increased by $1,142,246,097,598, and according to the Web site for the Bureau of the Public Debt at the U.S. Department of Treasury, yesterday at 4:30 p.m. eastern daylight time, the Nation's total outstanding debt was $6,782,571,483,957. Furthermore, in the current fiscal year we are in, 2003, which actually ended yesterday, interest on our national debt or what I call the ``debt tax'' is $304,978,878,641. It is time for Congress to pay attention to this disturbing trend.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to an issue of utmost importance to my home State of Utah and to the rest of this country. As we are now in the beginning of a new school year, I am very troubled by news from across our State about the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. The concepts and ideas behind this Federal education reform legislation remain just as good as they were 2 years ago when, with bipartisan support, Congress enacted the bill at the urging of President Bush. Despite the bill's good intentions, such as improving student achievement, increasing teacher quality, and providing parents with greater options, the legislation implementation has strayed off course. How bad is it? Under the strictest interpretation of standards, 78 out of the 83 schools in Utah's Jordan School District will be designated as failing schools. In rural Utah it is questionable whether any junior high or high school will be able to meet all of the criteria. This just does not make sense. I have met with teachers, principals, parents, school board members, and superintendents throughout my State, and I know first hand about the good work that is done every day in our schools. Utah's schools face challenges based on large class sizes and low State funding. Now, due to the imposition of a new series of underfunded Federal requirements, they face the possibility of being labeled as ``failures.'' There are two basic problems with the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. First, the act promised significant Federal funding to assist local schools in meeting new requirements. In fact, a strong commitment to fund the No Child Left Behind Act requirements was critical in garnering overwhelming bipartisan support for the legislation. Unfortunately, when it came time to provide the actual funding, Congress fell short by $9 billion. At a time when State budgets are already tight, Federal requirements to push schools to do more with less set up our schools to fail. Second, as with any complex law enacted by Congress, the Federal agency responsible for administration develops specific regulations. And in this case of No Child Left Behind, the U.S. Department of Education has developed a set of regulations based on an extreme interpretation of the legislation. There are many problems with the way No Child Left Behind regulations have evolved, but let us just take a look at two examples. Acknowledging that quality teaching is critical to student performance, No Child Left Behind calls for teachers to meet competency and training standards for subjects they teach. This sounds reasonable, but any new Utah secondary teacher is required to have a bachelor's degree in the subject that he or she teaches. In rural schools, teachers often must teach multiple subjects. In the case of foreign language teachers, many Utah teachers are former LDS missionaries with foreign language fluency. Even if these teachers have college minors in the language, they would still not be considered qualified to teach the subject. Special education teachers also teach a variety of subjects every day. Is it reasonable to require multiple college degrees? Clearly, greater flexibility is necessary to pursue teacher quality. Now, the No Child Left Behind Act also recognized that teacher turnover is a problem, and it directs States to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught by inexperienced teachers at higher rates than other students. Again, this sounds reasonable, but the implementation has proven problematic. In Utah, anyone with less than 3 years of teaching is considered an inexperienced teacher. The Jordan School District has a low percentage of inexperienced teachers across the whole district, and Midvale Elementary School in that district, they just recently aggressively recruited a dozen new teachers with foreign language skills to meet students' needs. But because they are all new teachers, it drives the school's percentage of inexperienced teachers above the district average, so the school is a failure under this requirement. Again, this just does not make sense. As a Congressman, I often hear about the unintended consequences of legislation. As someone who supported the No Child Left Behind Act, I am gravely concerned that a lack of funding and an inappropriate set of regulations have brought on many unintended consequences that will harm Utah's schools. The gap between legislative intent and real world implementation must be addressed. That is why I have cosponsored legislation to suspend No Child Left Behind requirements until Congress fulfills its funding commitments. I have seen the great work that goes on every day in our schools. Our teachers, our principals, the PTA parents, teacher aides and school district staff work hard for our kids. None of them would ever want to leave any child behind. They know that the best investment we can make is the investment in our children's education. Congress should do everything we can to help them succeed.