Jim Matheson

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, here we are at the end of September, and I find it pretty remarkable we are still talking about this. I am convinced that most people in this country expect us to come back here and get something done. I really do. When I meet with my constituents back home, there may be this issue that they care about or that issue they care about, but at the end of the day, they are looking for people to come back here and try to get something done. I supported H.R. 1308, the House passed-bill. I supported that. I also recognize that the United States Senate voted 94 to 2, 94 to 2, to fix this one problem. If we want to talk about the art of what is possible, and to get something done, then we ought to support this motion we are talking about right now. Let us talk about what is fair. Let us talk about what is right, and let us try to get something done. We are talking about folks in a lower-income situation. This was in the bill when the House and the Senate were first negotiating this tax cut package this last spring. It was taken out, $3.5 billion, which in the grand scheme of the overall cost of the bill was 1 percent, but it was taken out. But it is a pretty important $3.5 billion, pretty important to those families of all those kids. It is really important. It is so important, in fact, that 94 out of 96 senators thought so and voted to fix this problem. What I do not understand is, we come over here to the House of Representatives and this breaks down into a partisan issue. I do not get it. It sure was not partisan in the United States Senate. Everybody, just about everybody other than two, sure felt it was the right thing to do. So I would encourage all of us to take a little bit of a step back from the rhetoric, a little bit of a step back from trying to pursue what may be the ultimate and perfect piece of legislation in some people's eyes. Let us get away from looking at the art of perfection, and let us look at the art of what is possible. There is no question that if the House of Representatives passes this measure and agrees to go to conference with the Senate to move this package for these kids that are in that income bracket of 10 to $26,000, that it is going to get done. We can get something done around here. As I said at the start of my comments, I think that is what people in this country are looking for. They are looking for this Congress to make some progress, get something done. I encourage passage of this motion.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my fellow Members to oppose the previous question. Mr. Speaker, these are difficult times in our Nation. We are fighting terrorism on numerous fronts. Our economy is in serious trouble, unemployment is at record-high levels, and our future budget deficits are predicted to be the highest in the history of this great Nation. Now is not the time for Members of Congress to be voting themselves a pay raise. We need to show the American people that we are willing to make sacrifices. We need to budget, live within our means and make careful spending decisions based on our most pressing priorities. Mr. Speaker, let us send a signal to the American people that we recognize their struggle in today's economy. Vote no on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to block the automatic cost-of- living adjustment to Members of Congress. Regardless of how Members feel about this issue, they should all be willing to make their position public and on the record. A no vote will allow Members to vote up or down on the COLA. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will block the fiscal year 2004 automatic cost-of-living pay raise for Members of Congress. Because this amendment requires a waiver, the only way to get to this issue is to defeat the previous question. Therefore, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question.

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

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, in my district, nearly 200 children and their families utilize Head Start. I am opposed to the legislation before us today because it would pose a risk to the many Utahns who receive health, dental, social and educational services under this vital program. This is a program with a long-term record of success in investing in the future of our children. Head Start has a proven pattern of success with enrollment correlating to IQ gains, improved high school graduation rates and higher achievement in writing, vocabulary and social skills. For almost 40 years, Head Start has been a lifeline for disadvantaged Utah children, providing comprehensive services to them and their families. I have seen the positive results. Children are receiving medical, social and education help unavailable to them from any other entity. After taking to Utah parents, administrators and children in Head Start, I am convinced that the current program serves as well, and I don't understand the why Congress would want to make the significant changes before us today.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a sixth generation Utahn. I come from the West, and I come from a State with public lands. Quite frankly, public lands in the West are what this issue is all about. I have grown up with a legacy of the use of those public lands in my State. My roots are in southern Utah. Utah is a remarkable State. It is like a lot of the Western States, and it has got a lot of remarkable public lands, some places that are very special. As time has evolved, a lot of people around the world have discovered those lands as well; and I think it is safe to say, and I think there would be consensus at some point, that there is a lot of land out there that is worthy of protection because of its remarkable value. When I talk about the public lands debate, I know tonight we are talking about the issue of RS 2477 and designation of roads, but it is really part of the overall public lands debate we have in our State and in the West. I look back over my lifetime about how that debate has been carried out. When I think about it, I think about so much emotion and so much effort that has gone into this debate, but there has been no progress. I am alarmed by the lack of progress. As the West continues to grow and the population grows and the pressures develop, it is time for us to try to come together and try to make progress on these issues and resolve these issues as best we can. There are not just two sides to this issue. It is not that simple. There are multiple stakeholders involved in public land matters in Utah and in the West. I have talked to so many of them. Quite frankly, I have talked to a lot of them just during this week in preparation and anticipation of the amendment from the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) that would be introduced today. I have talked to county commissioners throughout rural Utah, and there is not unanimity among that group, quite frankly. There is a divergence of opinion. I have talked to all kinds of stakeholders. The sportsmen community, the recreation community. There are many different points of view, and these points of view all have legitimate claims, and it is unfortunate that we have been unable to bring those stakeholders together in a way to resolve these issues. In some respects, life repeats itself, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) earlier. The Department of the Interior in 1997 under Secretary Babbitt issued rules to deal with RS 2477. Congress did not like it, passed legislation just like we are looking at now to stop the funding of processing under that rule, and Congress said the Department of the Interior should not make any other rules until Congress deals with it. Now we flash forward to 2003. The Department of the Interior under a different Secretary has issued a new set of rules, and once again we are revisiting the issue of whether or not Congress should be involved in trying to have an inclusive process where we get all the stakeholders together and try to make progress on this issue. There is no question that there are legitimate claims out there for roads under RS 2477. We all know that. We all know there are roads that are roads. We know there would be some claims out there where we would agree they are really not roads. I would submit to the Members, in fact, that most of the claims in Utah are not controversial. But the problem is that everybody has been scared, everyone has been scared to deal with the noncontroversial roads, thinking they would make some precedent that would place them at a disadvantaged position when we deal with the controversial claims. So we have been involved in one litigation action after another, and one administration promulgates one set of rules, and another administration promulgates a different set of rules, and we are not making any progress. I bring before the Members tonight an amendment. It is not a perfect amendment. It is not perfect to any stakeholder in this debate. But what it attempts to do is make some progress, some progress in trying to designate the least controversial roads and allow them to move forward. In Utah, we call them class B roads. That is a State classification. But we have adopted that language in my substitute amendment. These are roads that can be traveled by two-wheel-drive vehicles. These are roads where I would suspect that no one would disagree that there is a legitimate claim. And I am not saying this solves the entire RS 2477 debate, but it is an opportunity to have some people come together on the least controversial part of this whole issue and try to make some progress. I also want to mention one other component of my substitute amendment, and that is that I specifically talk about the issue of roads that cross private property, and I say that private property rights need to be maintained and that one cannot file claims on that type of land. Finally, I mentioned earlier the amount of litigation that has been associated with this, and this is not the end of that pattern. It is unfortunate how much litigation we have seen here, and we are going to see it again. We are going to see it on this ruling that came out on January 6, I predict, and I think all of us are a little tired of that. I think we are tired of having that as a way to try to resolve things. It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and do its job. In 1997, I was not here, but Congress said we have got to do this. Congress did not agree with what Secretary Babbitt did at that time, and it is up to Congress to come together now. This substitute amendment is a stopgap. It is a stopgap to move forward on one set of the least controversial roads. It is not the solution. The solution is that we ought to hold hearings, we ought to try to move forward and make progress, bring the interests of all the stakeholders together, and let us make progress and move forward on RS 2477 claims.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, over the last few months, I have met with local law enforcement in Utah and the message is loud and clear, COPS and Byrne grants are efficient and effective programs. As a result of these meetings, I fought hard to preserve some of the most basic and fundamental law enforcement funding mechanisms offered by the federal government. The number one program that Utah law enforcement officers bring to my attention is the importance of the Byrne Grant program. This partnership among federal, state, and local governments creates safer communities by providing funds for personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance, and information systems for more widespread apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, detention, and rehabilitation of offenders who violate such state and local laws. Another successful program is Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS. Since its inception in 1994, the COPS program has been one of the most successful law enforcement grant programs in American history. A central goal of the COPS Office is to help law enforcement agencies implement and enhance community-based policing, and this program in particular has been successful in Utah. While I am pleased to see that the House Appropriations Committee provided $683 million for the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS program, it deserves more funding. I am happy that the House Appropriations Committee funded the Byrne Formula Grants at $500 million. This grant program is vital to local law enforcement in Utah. It is my hope that Congress and the Administration can recognize the value of these programs and that in the future we can work toward full funding.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, our nation is facing a protracted economic downturn, and manufacturers have been particularly hard hit. It is crucial that the federal government assists the smaller manufacturing businesses, which contribute significantly to the economy. This is why I support the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program. Many small businesses in my home state of Utah have benefited substantially from the MEP. I believe that if the federal government is content to merely study the problems of manufacturers, without providing a plan of action or tangible assistance, then our efforts to improve local economies will necessarily fall short. While I am pleased to see that the House Appropriations Committee provided $39.6 million for MEP, I hope that this worthy program will receive full funding during Senate consideration. Our government has devised and implemented an excellent resource for manufacturers and I believe that it deserves the continued support of Congress and the administration. Thank you for your consideration.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for yielding me time and raising this issue tonight. It has indeed been an interesting discussion. When I was elected to Congress, I thought I was coming back here to get things done, and I think that a lot of people in this country would like to see us make progress on issues. So when I look at issues, I try to approach what I call ``what is possible.'' There are a lot of points of view around here, not just a Democratic and a Republican point of view. There are a lot of points of view that different people have about what is a perfect piece of legislation, and I do not know if any of us have ever seen a perfect piece of legislation come through. But tonight I suggest again that we ought to think about what is possible. I supported the $300 billion tax cut, and, quite frankly, I supported H.R. 1308 as well. But I am also trying to be realistic about what we can do to get some tax relief through for these particular families we have been talking with in that lower income range. The United States Senate has spoken in a profoundly bipartisan way with a 94 to 2 vote. If we really want to make progress, it may not be perfect for my friend from Arizona, it probably is not perfect for a lot of folks in this body, but if we want to make progress in terms of providing some relief for these folks, this is the opportunity that I think is before us today. I think as we have had this discussion about what is in the tax bill and what is not in the tax bill and who said what, we have missed the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is this economy is not doing well right now, and the reason why we looked at a tax cut in the first place was because we know we have got to take steps to stimulate this economy. A lot of people are hurting out there. It has been going on for a long time. This week, we are going to see a bunch of checks mailed out, and it is my sincere hope that those checks are going to have a stimulative effect on this economy and we are going to see economic growth result from that. I would submit that in the context of those checks going out right now, it only highlights the omission, the omission of this group from $10,000 to $26,000 in annual income, this group that was included, quite frankly, in H.R. 1308, and is actually included, at least after 2005, in the original House bill we passed, and then in conference committee it got taken out. So whether the Earned Income Tax Credit is part of a benefit to those folks in that income range, I do not dispute that. It is. It is an important program. It is something that has bipartisan support. The question is, do those families deserve some piece of additional relief, as has been handed out to other families in this country? I would suggest that they do. So, in closing, I just want to suggest again, let us look for the art of the possible. This may not be a perfect tax bill, but let us look at the art of the possible. I saw a 94 to 2 result on the other side of the Hill. That is a pretty good indicator to me, that if the House of Representatives would pass similar legislation that that could go to the President's desk and be signed into law, and these low-income families, these folks who are working families, who work hard every day, would receive some tax benefit as well.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Advance Weapons Concepts funding in this appropriations bill. While I was pleased to see that the Energy and Water Appropriators chose to reduce funding for the ``Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator,'' I am still concerned that this bill provides $5 million for the weapon. We live in an era when terrorism and national security concerns dominate the political landscape, as well they should. 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. Supporters of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, argue that the current funding is strictly limited to weapons research and development in Department of Energy labs. This claim ignores the obvious end result of such funding--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. I have already seen too many Americans succumb to then-unforeseen consequences of nuclear weapons. The price of new usable nuclear weaponry is too high for this great Nation, once again, and I reiterate my opposition to the advance weapons concepts funding.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, last year I spoke in opposition to the approval of Yucca Mountain as a site for the Nation's nuclear waste and I rise again to urge support for the Porter-Udall amendment to reduce funding for Yucca. My home state, Utah, produces no nuclear waste. However, we are engaged in our own battle against storing out of state nuclear waste at a site called Skull Valley. Our neighbor, the State of Nevada also produces no nuclear waste. Yet, this Congress insists that Nevada should bear the responsibility for housing thousands of tons of spent fuel. Not only is Nevada expected to house this waste, but states like Utah are expected to allow the transportation of these hazardous, life-threatening fuel rods through our neighborhoods. This great Nation depends on the concept of shared responsibility. The transportation of this waste throughout the Nation is a huge risk that has not been properly considered. In the event of an accident, either at Yucca or on the way to Yucca, all of our fellow Americans will be forced to live with the consequences. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing funding for Yucca Mountain and in supporting the Porter-Udall amendment.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the sixth generation of Utah, and I come from the West. I come from a State with public lands. Quite frankly, public lands in the West are what this issue is all about that we talk about tonight; and I have grown up with a legacy of the use of those public lands in my State. My roots are in southern Utah. Some of my family is involved in grazing on public lands in Utah. It is a remarkable State. It is like a lot of the Western States, and it has got a lot of remarkable public lands, some places that are very special. As time has evolved, a lot of people around the world have discovered those lands as well; and I think it is safe to say, and I think there would be consensus at some point, that there is a lot of land out there that is worthy of protection because of its remarkable value. When I talk about the public lands debate, I know tonight we are talking about the issue of RS 2477 and designation of roads, but it is really part of the overall public lands debate we have in our State and in the West. I look back over my lifetime about how that debate has been carried out. When I think about it, I think about so much emotion and so much effort that has gone into this debate, but there has been no progress. I am alarmed by the lack of progress. As the West continues to grow and the population grows and the pressures develop, it is time for us to try to come together and try to make progress on these issues and resolve these issues as best we can. There are not just two sides to this issue. It is not that simple. There are multiple stakeholders involved in public land matters in Utah and in the West. I have talked to so many of them. Quite frankly, I have talked to a lot of them just during this week in preparation and anticipation of the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Udall) amendment that would be introduced today. I have talked to county commissioners throughout rural Utah, and there is not unanimity among that group, quite frankly. There is a divergence of opinion. I have talked to all kinds of stakeholders, the sportsmen community. I have talked to the recreation community. There are lots of different points of view, and these points of view all have legitimate claims, and it is unfortunate that we have been unable to bring those stakeholders together in a way to resolve these issues. In some respects, life repeats itself, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) earlier. The Department of Interior in 1997 under Secretary Babbitt issued rules to deal with RS 2477. Congress did not like it, passed legislation just like we are looking at now to stop the funding of processing under that rule, and Congress said they are not going to make any other rules until Congress deals with it. Let us flash forward to 2003. The Department of Interior under a different Secretary has issued a new set of rules, and once again we are revisiting that issue of whether or not Congress should be involved in trying to have an inclusive process where we get all the stakeholders together and try to make progress on this issue. There is no question that there are legitimate claims out there for roads under RS 2477. We all know that. We all know there are roads that are roads. We know there would be some claims out there where we would agree there really are not roads. I would submit to the Members, in fact, that most of the claims in Utah are not controversial. But the problem is that everybody has been scared, everyone has been scared to deal with the noncontroversial roads, thinking they would make some precedent that would get them at a disadvantaged position when we deal with the controversial claims. So we have been involved in one litigation after another, and one administration promulgates one set of rules, and another administration promulgates a different set of rules, and we are not making any progress. I bring before the Members tonight an amendment. It is not a perfect amendment. It is not a perfect amendment. It is not perfect to any stakeholder in this debate. But what it attempts to do is make some progress, some progress in trying to designate the least controversial roads and allow them to move forward. In Utah, we call them class B roads. That is a State classification. But we have adopted that language in my substitute amendment. These are roads that can be traveled by two-wheel-drive vehicles. These are roads where I would suspect that no one would disagree that it is a legitimate claim. And I am not saying this solves the entire RS 2477 debate, but it is an opportunity to have some people come together on the least controversial part of this whole issue and try to make some progress. I also want to mention one other component of my substitute amendment, and that is that I specifically talk about the issue of roads that cross private property, and I say that private property rights need to be maintained and that one cannot file claims on that type of land. Finally, I mentioned earlier the amount of litigation that has been associated with this, and this is not the end. This is not the end. It is unfortunate how much litigation we have seen here, and we are going to see it again. We are going to see it on this ruling that came out on January 6, I predict, and I think all of us are a little tired of that. I think we are tired of having that as a way to try to resolve things. It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and do its job. In 1997, I was not here, but Congress said we have got to do this. We do not agree with what Secretary Babbitt did at that time, and it is up to Congress to come together. This substitute amendment is a stopgap. It is a stopgap to move forward on one set of the least controversial roads. It is not the solution. The solution is that we ought to hold hearings, we ought to try to move forward and make progress, bring the interests of all the stakeholders together, and let us make progress and move forward on RS 2477 claims. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to talk on this issue.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, as a supporter of the arts and the humanities, I am pleased to support this amendment. During my time in Congress I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous constituents regarding the need for continued arts funding. In this time of daunting budget deficits, we must spend our collective resources as wisely as possible. Funding for the arts is sometimes construed as a giveaway on the part of the federal government, which does not result in tangible benefits to the nation. I dispute that claim--in my district in Utah, we are fortunate to have a thriving arts and humanities community that generates revenues for the local economy, teaches our children about American cultural traditions, and builds civic spirit through public events. I believed that our nation should invest in programs that generate benefits such as these and I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to restore funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for Humanities to last year's levels.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Two years ago Congress and the President worked together on a historic piece of legislation: the No Child Left Behind Act. This bipartisan agreement exchanged tough accountability standards for significant financial resources to help local schools implement reforms. Everyone agreed that money alone would not improve schools. But, funding and reforms were to go hand in hand. I had some concerns about provisions in No Child Left Behind and the burdens they would place on our local schools. But, I was reassured that with overwhelming, bipartisan support, Congress and the President would deliver the needed resources to make this effort a success. Since the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law in 2001, the federal commitment to provide the necessary resources has been broken. Congress has let our schools and our children down. Our teachers are hard working, and our administrators know what they are doing. They continuously do much with very little. But, we are pushing our education system to the breaking point. Without adequate resources our local schools are struggling to meet tough new accountability standards. Despite provisions stating that states would not be required to spend their own resources on federal reforms, that is exactly what is occurring. State budget shortfalls have already drained precious resources from our local schools. Constantly asking them to do even more with even less is the wrong pattern. it cannot reform or improve our schools. It will leave them unable to perform many of their core functions. It will eliminate quality, successful programs. And, it will drive teachers out of the education profession. The federal pattern continues to be: promises made, promises unkept. Sadly enough, the promises being broken are those made to the next generation. Providing a quality education for our children should be a top priority. However, as states are assembling their plans to assess and improve student performance, the federal government is eliminating the tools that would help them succeed. After-school programs that provide tutoring services have been cut. Resources to train and provide professional development for teachers are being reduced. The mandates should not continue if the requisite funding is not supplied. The cornerstone of No Child Left Behind is Title I funding for schools serving large proportions of disadvantaged, low-income students. In order to raise the academic performance of these students, Congress promised incremental funding increases in Title I. For this fiscal year, $18.5 billion was promised. However, this appropriation bill would only provide $12.35 billion, continuing the pattern of breaking federal promises. In addition, Utah would receive nearly $4 million less than promised for after-school programs, $2 million less than promised for teacher quality programs, and over $8 million less than promised for Impact Aid that offsets the costs of education near military bases and Native American reservations. These are not just numbers; they are tools: the resources that are critical to meeting new standards. Without the tools, our schools simply cannot work. This legislation would also continue the pattern of failing to deliver on the promises made decades ago to provide 40 percent of the costs of special education. It would fund Utah at $11 million less than the amount promised by the House of Representatives this April when we reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Our nation and my state are facing tough economic times that require tough choices. But, it is shortsighted not to recognize the role of education in the prosperity of the next generation. It is an investment worth making. It is an investment we cannot afford to neglect. Keeping our commitments regarding education funding will be critical to training the teachers and educating the leaders of tomorrow. It is time for Congress and the President to work together in a bipartisan way to keep our promise.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, nanotechnology presents incredible opportunities, not just for pure science, but for a host of interdisciplinary areas. The wide range of potential applications of this research is one of the best reasons why we, as a nation, should commit to long-term support of nanotechnology. Many of the most exciting ideas are still years from completion and even the current success stories are products of long-term research, study, and dedication. It is also important to realize that, due to the expense of establishing top-level research infrastructure, facility sharing must also be a priority. We have an opportunity to promote relevant, needed research and every effort should be made to best utilize limited resources. I look to the national laboratories at Sandia National Laboratories, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and at other sites to avail themselves of the scientific talent within this nation. Finally, there exists a tremendous opportunity for today's research commitment to become tomorrow's commercial success. We need partnership between federally funded research facilities and private industry in order to generate the ideas that will drive business in the future. I thank the Committee for its interest in this area of science and look forward to contributing to the national discourse on nanotechnology.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 758, the Business Checking Freedom Act of 2003. By repealing the prohibition on the payment of interest on demand deposits, this bill will repeal the last vestige of interest rate controls enacted in the 1930s during the Depression. This prohibition long ago ceased to serve any useful purpose and has imposed unnecessary costs on banks and their business customers, particularly small banks and businesses that cannot afford sophisticated cash management products. The repeal of this prohibition is long overdue. For institutions that cannot offer demand deposits, however, the bill includes a provision added as a result of an amendment that I cosponsored with the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member, and others that permits depository institutions to offer interest-bearing negotiable order of withdrawal, or NOW, accounts to their commercial customers. This provision will allow institutions such as industrial loan companies to offer the same type of interest-bearing account to business customers that they have long been able to offer to individuals, nonprofit organizations and public entities. I think it is important to note this provision does not permit industrial companies to offer demand deposits. As has been the case since the enactment of the Competitive Banking Equality Act of 1987, ILCs would continue to be prohibited from offering demand deposits. Moreover, ILCs will continue to be subject to the same safety and soundness regulations by the FDIC and by their State regulators as under current law. There is no indication that State regulators will allow their chartering authority to be used in an inappropriate manner. I note, for example, that State authorities in the past have rejected applications by some commercial companies to establish ILCs where there were concerns about how the charter would be used. H.R. 758 also will permit the Federal Reserve Board to lower the reserves it currently requires on transaction accounts, such as demand deposits and NOW accounts, and to pay interest on the reserve balances that depository institutions are required to maintain. While providing these cost savings for banks, the bill will require the board to conduct an annual survey on a broad range of bank fees and services and to report to Congress on trends in the cost and availability of retail banking services. This survey will provide Congress the information we need to determine the extent to which retail customers receive the benefit from the cost savings we are creating with this bill. H.R. 758 is a good, balanced bill that resulted in benefits for both banks and their customers. I recommend passage of this bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the ranking member, for this bill. I want to recognize that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their support of this, as well; and I want to acknowledge the lead sponsors of this bill, which are the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore). Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to address a couple of the concerns that have been raised. First of all, there is nothing in this bill that creates new authority to offer accounts to businesses. So while the Federal Reserve did suggest that we are altering the structure of banking in the United States, the institutions raised already can offer ILCs. Tyco already has one. So this bill talks about parity. It talks about banks and industrial corporations both offering interest on business checking accounts. That is all this bill does. There is a broader discussion about the validity of the ILCs. That is not what this bill is about. It is about offering two entities to have parity in terms of offering the same service. And let me mention one other point in this regard, and that is in terms of the concern about mixing of banking and commerce. FDIC Chairman Powell has stated that he does not have any safety or soundness concerns relating to this provision of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation that is overdue. The notion of eliminating interest on business checking accounts is something that seems like common sense. I was a small businessman before I came to Congress, and it never seemed to make sense to me is that this prohibition existed. We are talking about removing some inefficiencies that exist in our financial marketplace. That is why this legislation has such strong bipartisan support. I encourage Members to pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this issue; and I want to strongly associate myself with and endorse all the remarks he has made in this debate today. I, too, will vote for the underlying bill, the omnibus bill, but I cannot believe that we are in the circumstance we are in right now. I come from Salt Lake City. The Smarts are my constituents. We had a miracle occur in Utah a couple of weeks ago. It happened based on the principles of AMBER Alert, where information was disseminated to the public, and the public was looking for the perpetrators, and they were found. How can we let this delay any longer? Every day we delay is another opportunity lost, perhaps; and how do we place the value of even one, just one time when we could find a child after being abducted before that child was harmed? I think that, as we look at this debate, it is important to note that the Senate passed this bill unanimously. A majority of the House of Representatives in both parties has signed on as cosponsors to the comparable legislation in the House. If it comes up for a vote, I cannot imagine anyone not supporting this. We are getting caught up in another important piece of legislation that, as I said, I would support, but it is going to take time for that legislation to become law. That is the fact. If we separate out a stand-alone AMBER Alert vote in the House, that can become law very quickly. That is the issue at hand today. That is why I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let us get this bill out on the House floor. I cannot understand why this has become partisan. This should not be a partisan issue, but the leadership seems to not want to allow a vote on this. It happened in the last session of Congress after the Senate passed it unanimously. It is happening again now. It is time for us to put that aside. This is too important of an issue. We all care about this so much. Again, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.

Mr. MATHESON

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

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority whip. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we saw the benefits of an Amber Alert-like program yesterday in the State of Utah. We had a wonderful event occur, and it occurred because information got out to the public. What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that the Senate has already passed national Amber Alert legislation unanimously. It has been in the House for 2 months now, about; and I would submit that the legislation referred to that is going to be in the Committee on the Judiciary contains a number of other provisions which are worthy of consideration, but I would suggest it might be worthwhile for us to take a look at the Frost-Dunn bill, the straight Amber Alert bill passed through the United States Senate. We could take it up on a unanimous consent request right now and get it on the President's desk right away. Every day we delay is a day when another abducted child may have less access to an Amber Alert System that gets the information out to people. We learned a lesson in Salt Lake City. We are very proud of the miracle that occurred yesterday. Mr. Smart, in his time of triumph, still is emphasizing the need for Congress to move forward on this, and I would suggest that that is something this body ought to consider.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, the proposal before us today to reauthorize Temporary Assistance to Needy Families TANF, is one that falls short of providing temporary assistance or focusing on needy families. While there are aspects of H.R. 4 that should be applauded, such as increasing overall funding, restoring federal support for the Social Services Block Grant, removing the disincentives for two parents families, and approaching welfare cases with a family-oriented perspective, this legislation falls short on providing the real solutions that families struggling in Utah require. There are several essential elements for welfare reform that are lacking in H.R. 4. First, is state flexibility. H.R. 4 would limit state flexibility and subsequently undermine the welfare successes that Utah has experienced. The whole concept of the 1996 reforms was for states to tailor services. Over the last six years, it has been the ability of the states to adapt programs to meet the needs of populations with multiple barriers that has allowed caseloads to decline. Developing true self-sufficiency requires state flexibility. It means looking towards the long-term and providing credit for educational and vocational training, and it requires state alternatives to increase participation rates. At the same time that H.R. 4 limits state flexibility, it fails to even provide adequate funding for the increased requirements it entails. H.R. 4 would require the states to do more with fewer resources. It increases the mandates on the states to increase participation rates and work hours, but does not provide the resources to implement these changes. It leaves the states without the ability to cover the increased costs related to stricter work requirements and removes the credits available to the states for decreasing caseloads without providing other benefits. This unfunded mandate cannot be supported by Utah, and will not provide the temporary assistance required at this time. H.R. 4 also falls short on supporting families. It requires parents to go to work without any resources to care for their children. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that new work requirements would require $44 million dollars more for child care in Utah. H.R. 4 does not provide these resources. In addition, H.R. 4 would no longer allow single mothers with children under age six to be fully compliant if they work 20 hours a week. Instead, they would be required to work 40 hours a week, despite the young children they have at home, and then would be provided with no additional resources to help them obtain child care. Such actions are not pro-child and are not pro-family. I cannot support legislation that falls short on providing for the real people that I represent in Utah. They deserve more. That is why I support reauthorization of TANF that is built on sound principles: flexibility for the states, reasonable requirements, real work that will lead to long-term self-sufficiency, educational and vocational training, and adequate resources for childcare. Such a proposal would recognize the real needs of real Utahns and provide needy families with real, temporary assistance.