Jim Matheson

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Murray City Library, which is celebrating its centennial this year. As in many communities throughout the state of Utah, Murray City's library began as an effort of local volunteers wishing to promote the value of reading, literacy, education, and self-improvement to its residents. For many years prior to 1912, the Murray City Women's Club operated a library and reading room available to the entire community. On May 7, 1912, the Murray City Mayor and Commission voted to accept the Women's Club donation of its book collection and to set aside a library fund to establish, operate, and maintain a free public library. The vision of these citizens and their elected officials created an institution that has served the community with distinction since 1912. Over the course of the century that followed, the Murray Library continued to grow and promote its core values of providing friendly, responsive, accountable, respectful, and inclusive service to its community. It is now locally governed by a dedicated volunteer Board of Trustees that encourages everyone to celebrate the Library's past, present, and future. The Murray City Women's Club and the citizens' group Friends of the Library continue to support and promote a strong and independent library where the community can gather and share common interests and concerns. The Murray City Library, like all of Utah's public libraries, plays a critical role in providing our citizens with the information they need to live, learn, and thrive in our society. I would therefore like to celebrate the one hundred years of community service provided by the Murray Library and look forward to another one hundred years of excellence.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. As I said, let's not do apples and oranges here. Let's do apples and apples. If this Congress wants to act in a way to pass a balanced budget, it doesn't require a supermajority. If this Congress wants to make a decision to deficit spend, it can do that with a supermajority, and that's the same requirement as if it wants to raise the debt limit. By the way, if a simple majority balances the budget, there is no need to raise the debt limit. There's no need to raise the debt limit if we have a balanced budget, and that would be a simple majority to pass a balanced budget each year.

Mr. MATHESON. I said no.

Mr. MATHESON. I think it's the same threshold that requires us to make a decision to deficit spend. It's the same supermajority for that as well. So I think that what we do is we're putting a requirement in where, if you want to default or if you want to raise the debt limit or if you want to deficit spend, it requires a supermajority. But if you want to pass a budget that is within balance, it doesn't require a supermajority. It requires a simple majority, and that's the way the bill is structured.

Mr. MATHESON. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for introducing the bill, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia for the time. You know, I'm part of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of conservative Democrats, and for 16 years the Blue Dogs have been advocating a balanced budget amendment. It really shouldn't be about Democrats and Republicans. Since I've been in Congress, I've been here when Democrats controlled Congress and Republicans controlled Congress. I've been here when Democrats controlled the White House and Republicans controlled the White House, and neither party has the best track record on the deficit issue. And that's why I think the balanced budget amendment makes sense, because I think we need a structural requirement that brings everyone to the table and says this is what you've got to do, Democrats or Republicans. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. This should be an issue about setting a path forward that creates stability and sends the right message to the American people and to the rest of the world that we know how to live within our means. Now, I have to say that I wish we had more support on my side of the aisle than we do because, as I said, I don't think it's a Democratic or Republican issue. I think it's an issue that we all ought to be looking at--balancing the books, balancing your budget. Families do it every day. States do it. At least 49 States have a requirement for a balanced budget. I think that this country needs that, too, and I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and put us on a path to fiscal responsibility.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. I would like to thank my colleague from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for introducing the bill before us today. Mr. Chairman, I support this bipartisan legislation for two reasons. One, I believe that our gun laws should ensure that a responsible, law- abiding individual is able to exercise his Second Amendment right to carry firearms. Two, this bill simplifies what is now a piecemeal system of existing reciprocal agreements among the States. There are millions of concealed-carry permit holders in this country, including thousands in my State. They comply with State law to gain a State permit so that they can legally carry weapons for self-defense. By passing this bill, we will ensure that, when they travel to other States, they will be able to exercise their right to self-defense while away from home. This bill does not create a federal licensing or registration system. It does not allow a concealed-weapon permit holder to carry a concealed weapon in States like Illinois, which do not allow concealed carry. I think that addresses the criticism of this legislation that it would override a State's ability to determine who can carry concealed weapons within that State's borders. Permit holders who want to take their weapons with them to another State are required to be aware of and abide by that State's rules. As a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, I support this legislation, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. I rise in support of H.R. 818, which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for the prepayment of repayment contracts between the United States and the Uintah Water Conservancy District. I would very much like to thank Chairmen Hastings and McClintock and Ranking Members Markey and Napolitano for their support in moving this bill through the Natural Resources Committee. This is a commonsense bill that encourages and promotes fiscal responsibility at all levels of government. Allowing the Uintah Water Conservancy District to pay its debt obligations back early and in a timely manner is what we like to call a ``win-win'' in that it's finally beneficial to the local government and Federal Government alike. It provides local government the ability to responsibly self-govern, giving it the flexibility to pay its loan off early and save hundreds of thousands of dollars in future interest payments. This savings will result in lower costs to the water users, which is very important as we continue to grow out of the current economic recession and look for additional ways to support much needed economic development in rural communities. Likewise, allowing for prepayment results in a significant payment to the Federal Treasury. As Congress continues to look for ways to trim the Federal budget and encourage best practices and good government policies, allowing for prepayment is a good model to follow. In addition, I believe this legislation provides a good opportunity to help rural communities prioritize and implement best practices to utilize scarce resources in an effort to meet rural water demands in a cost-effective and fiscally responsible manner. I would also like to point out that there is precedence for allowing the prepayment of repayment contracts. H.R. 818 is similar to legislation used by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, which allowed for the prepayment of the repayment contracts for the Bonneville Unit. This effort saved hundreds of thousands in taxpayer dollars and allowed for project managers to consider time and cost savings through a balanced approach to managing an important resource in my State. H.R. 818 is the same bill that passed the House unanimously in the 111th Congress. It has also in this Congress been reintroduced in the Senate by my counterparts in the Utah delegation, Senators Hatch and Lee. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill once again.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me some time. Madam Speaker, I find that sometimes when we talk about issues around here, we hear the same thing we've heard for years and years and years, and sometimes that's a good thing. But sometimes it's also important to acknowledge that the world is changing. Things are happening. Globalization is a mixed bag, globalization creates opportunities, but it also creates a lot of challenges. As policymakers, what we need to do is look for where we can best position this country to compete in that changing environment. I rise in support of all three of these agreements, and I will tell you what's going on compared to years ago. The rest of the world's moving on. The rest of the world is opening markets to each other, and U.S. products and U.S. opportunities are being limited by that phenomenon. For example, in Colombia, 2008, the United States was responsible for 46 percent of all the goods coming into Colombia. But what happened after 2008? Well, Colombia entered into bilateral trade agreements with Argentina and with Brazil, and just 2 short years later, in 2010, the U.S. only had 20 percent of the products that were being shipped into Colombia. That's a pretty big drop. About 25 percent of all the materials coming into that country, the U.S. used to have that market and then we lost it. We should seek out the fairest deals, the best deals for this country; but we should not be in denial for what's going on in the rest of the world. We should not be in denial about markets opening up elsewhere and the U.S. sitting on its hands and doing nothing. Now, mind you, in the case of Colombia, in particular, it's already had an opportunity for markets in the U.S. due to the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Their goods have been coming here duty free for years. We have an opportunity now to level that playing field. So I encourage my colleagues to recognize where we are in 2011 and the circumstances we are in and what other countries in the world are doing to respond to the opportunities presented by globalization and dealing with mitigating the problems. I encourage you to vote for all three of these trade agreements.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. I want to thank my colleague from Kentucky for allowing me the time. I think, as we look at the TRAIN Act today, you're going to hear a lot during this debate from both sides of the aisle; and there are going to be a lot of strong words from both sides of the aisle, probably beyond what the TRAIN Act really is. The TRAIN Act was an idea: that we ought to take a look before we leap. The idea that we have all these processes taking place on individual rules, but that no one is bothering to take a look at how they all might fit together and what the impacts might be just doesn't make sense. That was the genesis behind this bill: to make sure that we look at the overall impact. You see, the EPA is supposed to look at the impacts on each individual rule, but they don't look at how they connect together. The Clean Air Act has been a wonderful success in this country. It has made a lot of progress, and I think everyone in this room appreciates the health benefits it has created. It has also made a lot of progress on a lot of different criteria pollutants. Now we're taking on and addressing issues that reflect some of the more difficult issues to address at smaller increments at the upper end. As we're going to do that, I would suggest it makes sense for us to make sure that before we take actions that could have great significance that we at least understand that significance. So that's the idea behind the TRAIN Act--look before you leap, and make sure how all of this fits together. Despite what this debate sounds like for people watching tonight, there is a common agenda here among everyone. I think most people in this country value clean air. They value good decision-making, too, and we want to make sure that we evaluate these issues with the best analysis possible and with the best information possible so we can make decisions in the most efficient way.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, this anniversary is first, last and always a day of remembrance. The shock and horror of that day has receded. But all of us remember where we were on that morning when passenger jets became missiles, striking the twin towers of the World Trade Center. The mountains of debris left when they collapsed are gone. The Pentagon has long since been restored. The field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania is a burial ground still, where contemplation by those who return is reverent and sorrowful. Two Utahns were aboard one of the hijacked planes that struck the first tower; another Utahn died at his job in the Pentagon when a third jet crashed into it. The passing days brought much heartache. Not all Americans lost family members during the terrorist attacks, yet it felt as though we did. In the aftermath, many of us lit candles, mailed donations, flew our flag, and hugged our children more tightly at night as we tucked them into bed. The heroes of 9/11--members of the New York and Port Authority police departments and the New York City firefighters-- quickly replaced the frightening images of the hijackers. From across this country, ordinary people put comfortable lives on hold in order to join the rescue and recovery effort. Later on, thousands of men and women from all walks of life stepped forward, donned our country's uniform and took the fight to those who plotted against America. Terrorists tried to break America apart; instead, their actions brought Americans together. The September 11th attacks triggered American resilience. We worked hard to return to normal--a new kind of normal. As a Nation, we have made ourselves safer and more vigilant--at airports, on trains, on subways, at ports and in cyberspace. We strengthened intelligence and information sharing, we traced the money and shut down terrorist bank accounts, and we foiled al Qaeda. The U.S. and its allies have hunted down, captured or killed over 600 U.S. targets, including the masterminds of 9/11--Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and Osama bin Laden. Ultimately, it is America's courage and America's values that defeated the terrorists. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in an address to Congress, ``We are so much more powerful in all conventional ways than the terrorists. In the end, it is not our power alone that will defeat this evil. Our ultimate weapon is not our guns, but our beliefs.'' This anniversary is but one marker along the way to building on the dream that is our democratic Nation--the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, in the report language from the committee report for this bill, the Appropriations Committee included some language talking about concern about the lack of remediation activity taking place around the country at various Department-sponsored facilities and small sites under the responsibility of the Department, and this is in terms of environmental cleanup for non-defense sites. I share that concern, and the committee report language talks about having the Department not later than November 15, 2011, give a detailed plan on remediating these small sites. Here is the issue. When you have some smaller sites that need to be cleaned up, you have your management infrastructure in place. We are spending money each year to maintain the management structure, but if you don't spend the money to actually do the cleanup, you just extend the life cycle of this project out year after year after year. I think if we focus on these projects and get them done by investing the funds to clean them up quickly, it is actually from a life-cycle basis better off for taxpayers. Now, this is a tough bill to find a pay-for because overall--and I applaud the fact that we looked at reducing spending in this bill--but my suggestion is a modest increase in the non-defense environmental cleanup account of $10 million, which will bring the funding level to what it was in the last fiscal year. That is paid for by reducing by $10 million the National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons activity account, which had been plussed up $185 million in this bill. There are a few of these sites around the country. They are smaller. There are some sites that are larger. I am not directing where this money goes. I am just trying to put money into the non-defense environmental cleanup account, hoping that since the committee indicated in its report language that it wants the smaller sites to move on a faster basis, that this funding could help assist in that effort. In my opinion, this is in the taxpayers' interest to do this. Now, there are sites around the country. There happens to be one in my congressional district. It is in Moab, Utah. It is a facility where the Department of Energy has been cleaning up a radioactive tailings pile that is on the banks of the Colorado River. It is a pile where the environmental impact statement indicated that in the long term, it is a near certainty that this tailings pile would be flooded and flushed down the river. There are about 25 million users of this water downstream. There has been ongoing bipartisan agreement in the House of Representatives for years about the cleanup of this site. And this is just one, and I think there are others that also are mandatory as well. Again, my amendment cannot direct it to one particular site, but I am suggesting that increasing funding by $10 million to bring the non-defense environmental cleanup account up to last year's level is a good thing to do. That's the purpose of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. MATHESON. I greatly appreciate the comments of my colleague Mr. Petri. And, again, I also commit to work with you to refine this to make this in the best possible form.

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

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to stand up and offer this bipartisan amendment today, offered by myself and also the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce). The amendment addresses an interesting problem, and that is, over history, at times, the Federal Government has given land to various airport authorities--it could be a city, a county, or a State--with a reverter clause that the land is no longer used for the purpose in which it was given or sold to that airport. Now, I'm not suggesting we ignore the reverter clause, but there are circumstances where a different airport-related use is proposed for this land but it can't be done under the original terms of the sale. So our amendment basically says that as long as this land is continued to be used for airport purposes, the FAA has the ability to ignore the reverter clause, if you will, or adjust the reverter clause to allow this land to continue to be used for airport purposes in a different manner than it was used before. This circumstance exists in various locations around the country. This is an issue that has been hanging out for a few years in some of our congressional districts, and I'm pleased we have found a way, I believe, to address what I believe are noncontroversial issues of changing to a different type of airport use. So I think it's consistent with the intent of the land being given to a city, county, or State or airport authority. This remains in the public hands. That is the substance of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I urge people to vote for it.

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

Mr. MATHESON. Reclaiming my time, if no one is going to claim time in opposition, I am happy to close. Again, I appreciate Mr. Pearce's work on this and I appreciate Mr. Petri's ongoing discussions on this. It's been a bipartisan effort. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Kentucky about the challenges of across-the-board cuts. I feel like I was elected to come up with suggestions. If I could draft an amendment that would be ruled in order, I would specifically say it should be about the spending cuts, but I can't legislate on an appropriations bill. So I would hope that as we look at this amendment, we understand that people read the record of this conversation, it was the intent of Congress when I looked at this amendment that agencies are supposed to reduce their vehicle purchases by 20 percent as the best that Mr. Royce and I can do under the rules of the House. We are trying to offer a specific opportunity to cut spending. We think we have identified it well during this discussion. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. MATHESON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MATHESON. My amendment affects departments other than Defense and Homeland Security. It's only for nonessential employees in other Federal departments outside of those two.

Mr. MATHESON. It's a goal across all of the other departments, all of the other appropriations areas, except Defense and Homeland Security are excluded.

Mr. MATHESON. That is correct.