Jim Matheson

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to pass legislation that will truly preserve history. Not our history, but the history of the Earth over 200 million years ago, the history of the dinosaurs. 200 million years ago, scientists believe that the redrock desert of Southern Utah was part of a large shallow lake. Dinosaurs fed at the shoreline of this lake. They walked this Earth, and they left their tracks. Early last spring, in a time far removed from the dinosaurs, a retired ophthalmologist living in St. George, Utah, began leveling out a part of his yard and discovered what is now being cited as one of the best collections of dinosaur footprints ever on Earth. These 150 footprints show the tracks of multiple species of dinosaurs. They are detailed, revealing claws, three toes, and the joints where dinosaurs may have crouched down. Paleontologists currently believe these footprints may be a record of the first meat eater in the dinosaur age and potentially include a previously unknown species. Since the discovery of these tracks, Dr. Sheldon Johnson and his wife, LaVerna, have generously shown thousands of visitors through their property to see the tracks. In one 2-week period, over 12,000 people journeyed to Southern Utah to witness this amazing discovery. Despite the individual generosity of the Johnsons, in the long term these tracks must be preserved. This bill will allow the appropriate preservation of these tracks in the necessary condition. It will help the city of St. George cope with the visitors, and it will leave a history of dinosaurs preserved for over 200 million years for many more generations to discover. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation, and I personally look forward to visiting this site often during my frequent trips to the St. George area.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 weeks, we have all seen what has become of our airline industry. Airport concourses across the country seem more like ghost towns than centers of international commerce. The lounges are empty, the taxi stands and busses are vacant. Across the country, airports that should be at the center of municipal liveliness, now seem to be monuments to a bygone era. The terrorist attacks left our nation reeling, but they did not change the fundamental soundness of any of our industries or the safety of future fliers. Over the past 2 weeks, our airline system has been hurt much more by perception than reality. It is our responsibility in this Congress not only to provide cash to the airlines, but also to provide reassurance and security to their passengers. Airport and airplane safety should now become the domain of the Federal Government. Before September 11, security was provided by the airlines that usually contracted this service to the lowest bidder. Securing the safety of the traveling public should be a basic function of government. We have the Coast Guard to protect boaters, we make sure the State Police monitor our highways, the skill of government-trained air traffic controllers has all but guaranteed the safety of our space. Why should security in airports and airplane cabins be any different?

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, Tuesday, September 11, 2001 now marks a day that no American will forget. America was faced with unfathomable tragedy at the hands of cowardly terrorists. The very freedom that we hold so dear was assaulted and our country must search for, find, and hold accountable those who are in any way responsible for these violent acts. As a nation, we must focus our attention toward proving our resolve and joining our fellow neighbors in healing our country. We are strong, proud and free country and our government will fight to protect all those ideals that make us such a strong nation. We must now give of ourselves to our community. I urge you to remember that there are many heroes who have given selflessly to our neighbors at this time of tragedy. Fire, rescue, police personnel and countless others have put their lives in danger to save those victims of this terrible crime. For that courage, we must thank them and remember that these people give their lives daily to protect our freedom. The leaders of our country will now focus on ensuring that justice is served. We should be rational about our strategy, we will focus on protecting our future and promise to uphold your freedom and your every liberty. Pray for those who are grieving. Stand proud of our great country. Know that your government will vigorously pursue those guilty with all available resources.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to acknowledge the good work that took place on the committee that I am on. I recognize this is during the time of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, but I am on the Committee on Science. I just want to acknowledge that I think it fits well with this bill, a good bipartisan effort on that committee, an effort to focus a little bit more on the long-term objectives we are trying to do in this energy policy. In the long run I think technology is going to be a key component of how we address our energy situation, technology that finds better ways for us to make energy from existing sources, technology that finds ways to produce energy from new sources, and technology that helps us use energy more efficiently. I am particularly pleased in the research and development component. It incorporated a suggestion that I made to study ways to improve use of the electric transmission system to make it more efficient. However we want to produce energy, however we want to use energy, at the end if we can move it across those transmission lines on a more efficient basis, that helps us all.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous question. I am very concerned about the fact that we are looking today at allowing a congressional pay raise as part of this rule. I have to tell my colleagues that at this time, when we have just completed a decade where the watchwords have been fiscal responsibility, where we have been able to move to the point where we no longer have annual budget deficits, where we have actually paid down some debt, where we have had a great history over the last few years, and since I came to Congress to continue in that tradition, to preach frugality, to show fiscal responsibility, to be aggressive about paying down the debt, in my own State right now we have uranium miners, we have people who are exposed to radiation through fallout from Federal testing of nuclear weapons. They are dying right now and the Federal Government will not even fund them the compensation they are due. The Federal Government is sending them IOUs saying, well, we do owe you this money, we just do not have the money to give you, but we are okay giving a congressional pay raise. I just do not think that fits with the times. And I think it is up to the Members of Congress to stand up and say we really do believe in fiscal responsibility. It is important we make a statement to the American people about our concerns about being responsible with their tax dollars. This is an interesting procedural issue. We do not get to specifically have a straight up-or-down vote on a pay raise. I think we should. I think people deserve that. I think Congressmen ought to stand up and say whether or not they are for that. So for that reason I make these comments in opposition to the previous question and urge my fellow Members to vote ``no'' as well.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his good work on the supplemental. I just wanted to stand up and say how pleased I am that the supplemental does include an effort to compensate folks that have been victims of radiation exposure. Years ago Congress admitted that there was fault and admitted we need to compensate victims. Yet we have not put up the money. There are people in my region of the country that have letters from the Government right now, IOUs saying, ``Well, yeah, you deserve compensation, but we don't have the money.'' We have come up now with some money. I am a little disappointed that of the $84 million we were looking for, only $20 million is in this supplemental and now we have got to do something about next year's budget as well to accommodate that, but it is a step in the right direction. We are going to keep fighting for this. We want to make sure that the people who were inappropriately exposed to harm, and the government has admitted culpability, we are going to make sure those people are adequately compensated. I am pleased that this supplemental takes a step in that direction.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to congratulate the gentleman for submitting this motion to instruct that includes doing the right thing. The Senate recognized it is the right thing to provide this funding for victims of exposure to radiation. It is interesting. We have a problem in our country where people tend to sometimes lose faith in their government. Here in Congress we stood up, I was not here at the time, but Congress stood up years ago and said, the government did something wrong and we are going to admit responsibility for doing something wrong in terms of inappropriately exposing people to radiation and so we are going to compensate these people. But at this point, it looks like Congress was talking a good game; but they are not backing it up with the actual funds. I have met so many people who have these letters in hand, these promises that someday we are going to give you this money. These are people that went through the process of filing a claim, filling out all the forms, going through their history, and the government then said, yes, you do qualify, but, gee, we do not have any money. That is just not acceptable. I challenge anyone in this body to look one of these victims in the eye and say, well, we do not have enough money for you. We are going to spend $35 million to send a letter to everyone telling them they are going to get a tax rebate, but we do not have enough money to compensate you while you are sick and dying from cancers caused by this Government. These actions have affected people in my State and in my own family. It is time for Congress to stand up and do what is right and fund this. I encourage everyone to support this motion to instruct.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I come before the House today to memorialize the death of Police Chief Sam Dawson of Sandy, Utah. Chief Dawson, who served faithfully for 7 years as the head of the police department of Utah's fourth largest city, passed away July 2, 2001, doing what he loved best, riding his Harley- Davidson motorcycle. Chief Dawson lived up to the sign he had on his desk that said, ``Lead, follow, or get out of the way.'' Chief Dawson was a leader for 30 years in Utah law enforcement. He started as a Salt Lake County sheriff's deputy in 1971. He became the chief police investigator for the Salt Lake county attorney's office after that and became the head of Sandy City's police department in 1994. Chief Dawson was an outspoken leader in his field. In the year 2000 he spearheaded a project to produce and distribute a video called ``Your Kid May Have a Secret,'' which describes the growing problem of methamphetamine use in Utah communities. Keeping true to his style, Chief Dawson sent a copy to every county sheriff and every city police chief, asking them to freely distribute the video throughout the State. Chief Dawson was also a leader among his peers. He led an effort to increase the size of the Sandy Police Department while at the same time increasing officer pay. He succeeded at both, increasing his department by 30 officers during his tenure and significantly increasing the wages of those who worked for him. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I end with the words of Lieutenant Kevin Thacker of the Sandy Police Department. He said, ``Sam Dawson will be greatly missed by all who knew him. He will always be remembered for his leadership abilities and dedication to the community. His death leaves a void in the police department.'' Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Members of the House of Representatives to join me in heartfelt appreciation for the service this great man provided my community. I would also like to ask the House to join me in extending our deepest condolences to the wife of Chief Dawson, Bridgett Dawson, and her three children, Sam Jr., Chris, and Angela.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in support of this resolution and in support of the valiant men who served their country in World War II. Those men, known today as the Navajo Code Talkers, played a key role in our Nation's victory in that great war. Mr. Speaker, it was the cryptic language of the Navajo that was essential in the U.S. Marine takeover of vital areas like Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Peleliu and Iwo Jima. Well-known to the Code Talkers are the words of Major Howard Connor, who said, ``Without the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima.'' Today, we open up our Nation's Capitol to the few surviving Navajo Code Talkers. Later this month, the President will give them an honor long overdue. Mr. Speaker, only 5 of the original 29 Code Talkers are alive today. I am proud to say that one of those, Mr. Allan Dale June, lives in my home State of Utah. Mr. June, like so many others during World War II, sacrificed years of his life for the love of his country. I would ask that all Members of this body join me today in thanking these men for their service. These medals, which can never fully compensate these men for their sacrifice, will at least ensure that their heroic deeds will never again be forgotten.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to voice my continued enthusiastic support of this vital program to plan for and implement security operations in our State as we welcome the world to the 2002 Winter Olympic games in Salt Lake City. I greatly appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), to ensure this effort is funded in a timely fashion.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak in support of H. Res. 168. I would like to take advantage of this time to acknowledge the contributions and history of the Native American population in my State of Utah. Five major tribes have roots in Utah: the Utes for which my State is named, the Dine or Navajo, the Goshute, the Paiute, and the Shoshoni. These great tribes represent very different cultural heritages. While the Utes and Shoshoni adapted well to the introduction of the horse and lived in the northern plains areas of Utah, the Goshute, Paiute, and Navajo developed a culture in the desert. Though the differences between desert culture and plains culture are great, one thing has bound Utah Native Americans and that is the adversity that they have faced. With the expansion of the West, these tribes have maintained their cultural identity while dealing with great hardship. I commend the leadership of these organizations as they continue to find ways to help their members and to progress despite the difficulties of the past. Recently, a book entitled ``A History of Utah's American Indians'' was published detailing the history of these people. I commend the work involved in this project and thank the Utah State Division of Indian Affairs for their leadership in making this book possible.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, this week there will be a number of different energy policy proposals that will be introduced, a number of events that will attract a lot of attention, attract a lot of press; and we are at the outset of a time when Congress will be asked to take on the very difficult task of trying to develop a commonsense, comprehensive national energy policy. This is a complicated issue, and we really should not take a simplistic approach. In that context, we should not take a simplistic partisan approach. Energy should not be a partisan issue. We should find a common ground within this body to tackle such a complicated issue. We are going to hear concerns about this issue, where we talk about some short-term issues and some long-term issues, and it is important to consider both of those time frames in terms of making good public policy decisions. The short-term is the set of issues that we can all relate to the most, because we are all consumers in this country and we have all felt the pain of the gas pump. We have all seen our electric bills come in at higher prices. We have all seen our gas bills come in at higher prices. The short-term issue is the more tangible issue. Although it is the more tangible issue, it is also one that is very complicated to solve, because there are not too many options we have right now. But we should recognize that consumers are feeling the pinch. We should promote policies that encourage any potential incremental production that we can accelerate quickly to bring to market, and we also need to encourage policies that are going to encourage efficiency and better use of our energy supplies. That is really the best weapon we have got in terms of short-term solutions to our energy supply problems, because if you really want to take a step back and talk about the problem, as I said, it is very complicated in nature. It comes down to where we have a supply and demand imbalance. And in the short-term, supply is going to be very hard to affect so we really need to take a look at the demand side and see what we can do. There are a lot of technologies out there right now. This is not something where we have to come up with something new. These technologies exist today, they are proven, and we have to be smart about how we use energy in our country. But let me shift to the long-term issues, which get to be a broader range of issues we need to talk about. We need to talk about ways to enhance our supplies; there is no question about it. We need to do this in a comprehensive, balanced way. We need to rely on technology to give us the best available options for creating additional energy supplies. From a public policy perspective here in Congress, we need to try to create a more predictable policy environment. I used to work in the energy business. I know how complicated it can be when you want to site a power plant and you are trying to figure out, what are the rules? I have to play by the rules, but I do not know what they are. We need to create a situation where we have more transparent rules, a more transparent situation, so people can make informed decision, because we are talking about investments of hundreds of millions of dollars in an individual energy facility. If we are going to make those types of investment decisions, we have to have a predictable future about what the marketplace is going to look like and what the rules of the game are going to. So I call on Congress to make sure that as we make these policy decisions, we do not make the situation more complicated. We need to pursue something where we are clear and predictable in the policy environment. Energy should not be characterized as a partisan issue. Our constituents expect more of us. Our constituents recognize how difficult energy policy can be. They are also feeling the pinch today. I think as we sit here at the outset, it is important for us to take a step back and make a commitment to take a good balanced comprehensive approach, looking at both supply and demand, and address this in as comprehensive a manner as possible.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, the energy issue is clearly an issue that is on everyone's mind right now. I just this past week invited a number, a cross section of individuals, to attend a meeting where we would discuss what was the appropriate role for the Federal Government with respect to energy policy. I had people who represented investor-run utilities. I had municipal utilities at the meeting, rural electric cooperative participants. We had large industrial consumers. We had low-income energy advocates. We had people from the State Regulatory Commission in Utah as well. I can tell my colleagues that if we need any other indication that this is a significant issue, everyone who we invited came to this meeting. It was a fascinating discussion, and what we talked about was the notion of a balanced approach, a balanced approach that incorporates a number of different solutions to what is an energy problem. Admittedly, this meeting tended to focus more on the electrical side of the equation than on the oil and the gasoline side, so my comments are going to focus more on that as well. But I would suggest that as we look at this energy issue, we really need to sequence time periods in which we are talking about what can we do, what can we do to put ourselves in a better position. In the short term, our options are rather limited. Clearly we have a supply and demand imbalance, and in the short term, you are not going to be building any new power plants very quickly. In the short term, the best available option we have right now is to increase energy efficiency. I want to make sure that people understand. As I say, energy efficiency, that is a notion where it is not like you have to give up something; it is not like you have to turn the thermostat down to 60 degrees and put on five different sweaters. Efficiency means we can have the same comfort level but using less energy to get there. The technologies are there and, quite frankly, in the short term, which I describe for the next 2 years in the western United States, energy efficiency gains are one of the best tools we have to try to mitigate a very difficult circumstance that we are in in terms of that supply and demand dynamic. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the midterm, which is the 2-year time frame to, let us say, the 30-year time frame. Energy efficiency is still going to be part of the equation, but there are more factors that can be added to the equation. This is where we can pursue new sources of supply. We are going to have to create additional sources of electric supply. We should probably take a balanced approach that incorporates a number of technologies, that is going to be part of the equation. If we look at the 25-30 years and beyond, that is what I call the real long-term perspective, we need to make a concerted effort, a concerted effort on research and development for technology to provide some solutions; solutions in terms of creating energy more efficiently, solutions in terms of using energy more efficiently and solutions in terms of creating energy from new sources that are not a significant part of our energy supply today. That is why as a Member of the Committee on Science, I am very concerned about the DOE budget numbers proposed by the administration that show cuts in research and development spending for energy efficiency programs and for energy supply, research and development as well. I am very concerned about that, because I think in the long term, it is good public policy for us to encourage development of good research and technology in this regard. I mentioned this energy forum and I mentioned all of these people who came and attended this forum. The fact is we talked about a whole bunch of policy areas where the Federal Government should or should not have a role. I just want to focus on one of those issues that we discussed as a group that I thought was very interesting and something that Members of Congress should keep in mind, and that is the sense that we have gotten into the situation we are in now partly due to the fact that we just had a lack of a predictable public policy. I used to work in the energy business. I developed cogeneration facilities in the independent power business, and I can tell my colleagues that by the time we got to about 1990, it became very difficult to make rational decisions about investing in new power plants because there was so much uncertainty about what the market was going to be. Congress was moving towards passage of something called the Energy Policy Act, which deregulated the whole cell side of our electric industry. But they said, you know what, it is up to the States to figure out what to do on the retail side. Right then we had a bit of a dysfunctional market where wholesale prices were deregulated and working in one marketplace and retail were working in a different situation. This is a complicated issue. Admittedly, it is hard to implement policy quickly, but we had a series of actions over the years since the Energy Policy Act was passed, FERC Order 888, FERC Order 889, FERC Order 2000. We are still trying to resolve what to do with our electric transmission systems in terms of regional transmission organizations. We need to resolve those issues because decisions about investing in infrastructure, investing in new supply are difficult to make in the face of uncertainty. So I would suggest that, as a rule, we should try to develop unified predictable policies. The same applies in terms of dealing with regulatory rules for environmental permitting. Everyone in this meeting that I had in Salt Lake City last week indicated that they are concerned about following the rules. They want to follow the rules. No one suggested rolling back environmental regulations. But they all expressed a desire that we know what the rules are and that there is a process to work through an appropriate permitting activity. We have got to make sure, again, that we create that unified predictable policy environment where people can make rational decisions. I think that is an important goal for us as Members of Congress. I think that is an important part of developing the balanced energy policy that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) has been discussing.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 108. This recognition of the NSF is well deserved. For the last 50 years, the National Science Foundation has been the backbone of basic scientific research throughout the country. It has served as the clearinghouse for hundreds of thousands of grants for graduate research. It has led the way in supporting innovative programs in science for elementary and secondary schools, and it has filled a valuable role in coordinating scientific endeavors in a variety of fields. The value of basic scientific research is something we cannot overestimate. The mission of the National Science Foundation is to further science, health, prosperity, welfare, and national defense. Research through NSF grants and scientific exchanges has been the basis of innovations in all of these arenas. It has provided the knowledge, the understanding, and then the development to drive our increasingly technological society. This research has also been the basis of increased comfort, longer lives, and greater economic prosperity. Over the life of NSF, many national priorities, including improved energy efficiency, space flight, improved health, and the mapping of the human genome have been pursued by NSF grants. I genuinely speak in continued support of the National Science Foundation. It represents a valuable contribution of the Federal Government to all of society.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today as a member of the Congressional Autism Caucus and to voice my support of House Concurrent Resolution 91. The challenges of autism have been brought to my attention by parents and families whose lives have been affected by autism. Often these parents suffer as the young children do not speak, do not make eye contact and withdraw from them socially. This legislation provides a call for increased awareness of autism. It commends the courage of parents, recommends early intervention, and encourages training and support for parents, teachers, and professionals who work with autistic children. While once children with autism may have been institutionalized, now early interventions can unlock the worlds of these children. In my home State of Utah, one of the greatest challenges in expanding services to children with autism is a lack of adequate resources. Many children are denied services due to a lack of space. These are the services which have helped other children learn to interact with family and to combat the debilitating effects of autism. Currently in Utah, there is a call to establish an Autism Center for Excellence, a new school with the space, the trained personnel, the teachers, the social workers, and the researchers all engaged in helping these children and families escape their isolation and integrate into society. The Carmen B. Pingree School will be the first systemic program in the Nation to help children with autism develop from preschool through the elementary grades. It will provide these early services, and it will engage in progressive research. It is my hope that this legislation will provide some of the needed impetus for the recognition of autism. Hopefully it will be the beginning of many efforts across the Nation to create centers of excellence like the Carmen B. Pingree School to bring crucial services into the lives of children with autism.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, the House is going to be taking up the issue of education over the next couple of weeks, and I thought it would be important to communicate some of the thoughts that I have learned, having spent a significant amount of time in my district over the Easter recess talking to teachers and superintendents, talking to students, and talking to parents. I can say, I come from a State that is unique. Utah's needs are not often represented in national discussions on education, and I think it is important to point out some of the unique characteristics in my State and how national policy may affect that. I represent the State with the lowest per-pupil expenditure in the United States. I represent the State with the largest student-teacher ratio in the United States. Utah schools are struggling to keep up. The State Office of Education estimates Utah will add over 100,000 new students over the next 10 years. It is going to require 124 new schools to be built in my State. These challenges that I mention, these challenges we face in the State of Utah, make the Federal-State relationship very critical. We believe in Utah, and I firmly believe, that education is fundamentally a State and local issue. So as we talk about education policy here in Congress, I want to make sure that we talk about it in the context where we are not creating Federal programs with a number of strings attached. It is important that we maintain local control. Let me talk about five quick issues that we should consider during our education discussion. The first is class-size reduction. The Federal class-size reduction program has been a great success in my State. That program takes Federal dollars and puts it directly in local school districts. I have talked to all the school districts in my congressional district. They have talked about what a positive program it is, that they have the flexibility to decide what to best do with that money. Some schools hire teachers to create new classes. Other schools hire a reading specialist to move from class to class. But that flexibility has been very important in my State. The second issue I would mention is the issue of teacher development. As I meet with teachers, they think it is important that they have the opportunity to improve themselves throughout their careers. That is something a lot of people do in the private sector. We should make sure our teachers have that opportunity. We should make sure that the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is maintained and strengthened in the future. The third issue I want to talk about is the notion of accountability. We all think accountability is a good idea. We just need to be careful that we do not enforce a one-size-fits-all solution at the Federal level. Every State, every community has their own circumstances; and we ought to make sure that those local circumstances can be accommodated in whatever accountability measures that we have. I can say that in Utah, we have already created a new State testing program. We are in the process of implementing that, and Utah teachers are not afraid of accountability; but we want to make sure that accountability is measured in the broadest sense possible that accommodates all the variables that affect student performance. Finally, I would like to talk about the notion of decreased bureaucracy. I have met with so many teachers and administrators, and they talk about the problems with special education in terms of the paperwork. The paperwork is such a burden on our teachers and our administrators; and while it is clearly also important that we fully fund the Federal commitment to special education, I think it is also important that in the context of looking at funding for special ed we also ought to look at trying to reform special ed to reduce the paperwork. That is a view from my own home district, and I think it is important that we put that in the Record, these issues and concerns about educators in the State of Utah as we discuss education.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscally responsible Blue Dog budget. From what I am hearing so far, I think we need to encourage everyone in this body to read this budget and pay attention to what it actually does, because it cuts through the rhetoric and it takes a fiscally responsible approach to what we ought to be doing here today. We agree we want to cut taxes, and we agree we want to have debt reduction. This budget commits four times the amount of tax relief in the first year, compared to the Republican budget. But beyond that, this budget represents the voice of fiscal responsibility. The Blue Dogs believe in paying down debt. In fact, this budget, over the first 5 years, pays down $400 million of additional debt compared to the Republican plan. This is the real deal. This makes a down payment on our future. We need to take a look at our children and not place the burden of that debt that we ran up over the last 20 years on them. My concern is that we are all talking about a surplus here when, in fact, the proper term is a projected surplus; and if the projected surplus does not actually occur and if we come in underneath that, our tax cuts and our spending are going to move forward and debt reduction is going to fall off the table. It is going to be the odd man out. This budget says, let us be aggressive; let us pay down our debt first. Mr. Chairman, I encourage everyone to support the Blue Dog budget.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for all their work on this budget effort, and I agree with the chairman, who has pointed out that there is really a lot of common ground here. There may be a little question in the difference of approach. There is a lot of common ground. People on both sides want tax reduction, and clearly people on both sides want debt reduction. We have heard a lot of discussion tonight about the benefits of debt reduction. The problem is, we keep talking about this in the context of a surplus, and we ought to be calling it what it really is, which is a projected surplus. The budget leaves little margin for error in that context. My concern is, if things do not go as planned, we are going to enact the tax cuts, we are going to enact our spending program, and debt reduction will be the odd man out. It will be what falls off the table. So I would urge caution as my colleague, the gentleman from Kansas, did as well, that we ought to be fiscally responsible. We ought to make sure we take advantage of this one-time opportunity to take a real bite out of the tremendous debt we have built up over the last 20 years.

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 13, 2001, I was unable to cast votes on rollcall votes 46 and 47. However, had I been present, on rollcall vote 46 I would have voted ``yea'', and on rollcall vote 47 I also would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. MATHESON

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

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I came to Washington to set aside partisan differences and bring common-sense logic to our debates. With breathtaking speed, we are rushing the President's tax cut proposals toward a vote. We have little time for questions, analysis or discussion. There is no question that tax relief is one of the primary concerns for families and businesses across my State. During my campaign I supported tax relief proposals such as elimination of the marriage penalty and estate tax relief. But let us not kid ourselves. The breakneck pace adopted by many in Congress right now leaves no time to consider our priorities. We are sacrificing the wisdom of the longer view for the instant gratification of an easy tax cut. Unfortunately, rather than having a thoughtful debate and review of an overall budget framework, Congress is set on a path to consider individual pieces of the tax relief package without first understanding their combined impact. I come from Utah. In Utah we live within our means. We pay our bills, we balance our family budgets and we save for our future. Why should our government not behave the same way?