Jim Matheson

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Well, I want to thank my colleague from South Dakota who is always a very substantive participant in any public policy discussion we have here in Congress, and I know she's invested a lot of time and effort when it comes to the energy issue. I really appreciate her participating in this Blue Dog discussion. There are a couple of points that were raised by my colleague from South Dakota that I think merit one more mention. The discussion of what we've done in this Congress, there have been some actions that have been taken, and one of them is going to bear fruit in the long run. We're not going to see a result right now. It's a process that came out of the Science Committee, of which I'm a member. The chairman of that committee, Mr. Gordon, another Blue Dog, pursued a really aggressive effort to invest in basic research, in R&D, tried to put Federal funding out there to really get things going in a more aggressive way than it has in the past. He created a program called ARPA-E. It's designed after a previously created program within the Defense Department that's called DARPA, which created a lot of research that's helped us with technology advancements in the defense arena. And this legislation created a comparable effort in the energy policy arena, and our Blue Dog colleague, Mr. Gordon, has been a real leader on that. And that is another action this Congress has taken that is an important step to take. And I know we're frustrated by $4 gas today, and that program, the ARPA-E program, is not going to reduce the price of gas next month. I understand that. But the point is there are a series of steps we need to take. There's some short-term, some mid-term, some long-term strategies, but we need to put them all on the table now. We need to do what we can do to make progress on this issue. The second point that my colleague from South Dakota said--and I just want to emphasize--is she talked about opportunities and activities that we can work with our partners, including in Canada. When she mentioned Canada, it reminded me of the fact that as a country Canada has placed a tremendous emphasis on developing their tar sands resources. Now, I represent the State of Utah and a significant amount of the oil that is refined in refineries located right in the Salt Lake City area comes from Canada. It comes from the tar sand resource in Canada, and it is piped to the United States. Now, we can do that here, too. We can maybe take a page out of the Canadian book on how they, as a country, made efforts to develop that resource. It's an unconventional resource, and they took the steps and they made a significant commitment. It has not been without costs. It has not been without setbacks. There are lessons to be learned there, too, which we as a country should do. And I understand that the tar sand resource we have in the United States--and we have it in my own State of Utah--is a little bit different composition than the Canadian tar sands. I understand that there are differences, but there's so much that we can learn from that, and it's a viable source of production today in Canada. And so I appreciate the mention of how we can learn from others and learn from our partners, and I don't know if you had something you wanted to add to that point.

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to organize a special order this hour on the part of the Blue Dog Coalition. The Blue Dogs wanted to take advantage of this opportunity tonight to speak about energy policy issues. I think that there is no doubt that when it comes to domestic policy issues that this country faces, that energy policy is right at the top of the list. I think it is clear that this country should be looking for a comprehensive balanced energy policy, and I think that represents the type of politics the Blue Dogs in the House of Representatives have often supported. We have a number of issues that we really want to work through tonight, and I have a number of my fellow Blue Dog colleagues who are going to join me during this hour to talk about various energy policy issues. And I would like to start right now by recognizing my colleague from the State of Louisiana, one of the newest Members of the House, and someone who is prepared to really contribute on this issue, Representative Cazayoux from Louisiana.

Mr. MATHESON. I thank my colleague. And I appreciate the fact that my colleague from Louisiana highlighted the notion that there is not a single action that we need to take; that in fact we need a comprehensive effort, we need to look at a series of different opportunities to try to address both the supply and the demand side. And I appreciate his leadership on the issue and want to thank him for joining us in the Blue Dog hour. Right now I recognize my colleague from Kansas, a long-time Blue Dog, Congressman Moore. (Mr. MOORE of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATHESON. Well, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for his thoughts, and I appreciate again the introduction of the notion that we need a comprehensive approach. There is just not one silver bullet that's going to solve this circumstance. It really is consistent with what the Blue Dog energy principles that were adopted at the start of the 110th Congress say about fuel diversity, the recognition that long-term U.S. energy independence is going to come from putting everything on the table, everything from conventional oil and gas and from alternative sources such as oil shale and tar sands, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, coal, and biofuels. If we're really going to take this issue on, we've got to look at it in that comprehensive manner. Again, the Blue Dogs have adopted a set of principles that recognize the value of a diverse fuel mix within this country as a long-term solution of creating energy security for this country. With that, I now would like to welcome another fellow Blue Dog to speak, who is a fellow member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and who is cochair for communications for the Blue Dogs in this Congress-- Congressman Ross from Arkansas--who has in his years in Congress been a real leader on trying to address energy issues in this country. I welcome him to participate in this discussion. With that, I will yield to him as much time as he would like to consume.

Mr. MATHESON. Well, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for spending time with us this evening but also for trying to take a thoughtful and comprehensive approach. That's really what Blue Dogs are about. I think we really try to discuss items in the context of policy. I'd just like to introduce one other factor into this discussion about the high gas prices that we face today and what we can do in terms of the price of oil, and it's consistent with what Blue Dogs talk about a lot. People probably didn't think I'd raise the issue of fiscal responsibility relative to oil prices, but it turns out that there is a significant relationship here. It has to do with the fact that, during the current administration, so much more money has been borrowed. When our current President took office, the national debt was around $6 trillion. We're approaching $10 trillion now. $4 trillion just in the last 7\1/2\ years. Do you know what that has done among many other things? It has created a weaker dollar. Now, oil is a global commodity. It's traded all over the world, and it's traded under one currency, and that's the U.S. dollar. That weaker dollar means that oil costs even more for us in this country than it does for other countries with stronger currencies. I've brought with me tonight this chart to graphically demonstrate the relationship, according to the Energy Information Administration, between the lower dollar--the weaker dollar--and how much the price has gone up in terms of dollars per barrel. It's pretty self-evident that we had a strong dollar for a number of years. Then in the early part of this decade, as the debt started to increase, the value of the dollar dropped precipitously, and the price of oil went up at the same time. It's not the only factor associated with how expensive oil is in the world today, but clearly, in all of the discussion that we've been having about why the oil price is so high in the world, in my opinion, this particular issue has not received much attention. The Blue Dog Coalition has this fundamental principle about balancing budgets and about living within our means. We tell people that you may not see the impact of this debt right away, but here is an impact because, with all of that increased debt, we've had to borrow so much money as a country that we've weakened our currency relative to the rest of the world. Therefore, because that's how it's traded all over the world, the price of oil on a dollar-per-barrel basis has gone up a lot. So I wanted to introduce this concept, which is very appropriate within a Blue Dog Special Order hour here on the floor of the House of Representatives, to talk about the linkage between the need for fiscal responsibility and how it affects energy prices, which is something that, I think, ought to be part of this debate as well. With that, I'd like to yield time to another one of my fellow Blue Dogs, another individual who is very thoughtful and measured in his approach, and that's the type of approach we need for a comprehensive energy policy. He is my colleague Mr. Scott from the State of Georgia.

Mr. MATHESON. I appreciate that. I'd like to hear from Mr. Scott.

Mr. MATHESON. I again thank my colleague for his comments. I think that he has helped describe the global picture. We haven't discussed that enough about we're part of a global market. And it's important for us to take the lead and develop fuel diversity and try to develop some level of greater independence, because outside of that, in some respects our actions are the tail wagging the dog. And we need to get beyond that as a country. That's not a comfortable position for this country to be in. The first sentence of the Energy Principles Document that the Blue Dogs created at the start of this Congress is that energy independence is a matter of national security and economic security. This country faces so many great opportunities if technology does take us to a new place. We will be in such a better position in terms of our economy, in terms of our foreign policy, in terms of our position in the world. And we can make the world a better place with that technology development, too. That's the exciting opportunity for beyond our borders as well. Blue Dogs supports promotion of a forward-looking, market-based comprehensive national energy strategy. As we've discussed many times tonight, there are short-term, mid-term and long-term issues. It's a complicated issue. In fact, each of the sub-issues on their own are complicated in their nature. And sometimes in the world of politics the rhetoric gets really simple. But on this one, it's time for us to roll up our sleeves and act in a way this body is supposed to act, in a deliberative, thoughtful way to generate comprehensive legislation that truly tries to solve problems and achieve progress. That's what we're elected to do. I think the Blue Dog Coalition approaches most issues in that way. I think we really don't care about if it's a Democratic idea or a Republican idea, we're trying to make progress. And so as I close this hour and this discussion of energy issues, I suspect that we will be back talking about this again. This issue is not going away. It's something that we all need to learn more about and we all need to work together. None of us have all the answers, but we need to work together as a Congress to try to find solutions as best we can. With that, I thank all of my Blue Dog colleagues for joining me tonight.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, this is an important first step. This bill asks the CFTC to exercise its ability to determine if undue speculation is having an impact on oil prices in this country. We've heard witnesses before the House of Representatives testify before different committees that suggest this could be upwards of $50 of the price per barrel right now may be due to this type of activity. So I think it's important we take this first step. But I call it a first step. I would encourage our colleagues to continue to work together in a consensus way to have a productive effort in closing what's called the London loophole. I, along with many other Members in this body, have put forth legislation to stop unwarranted speculation in foreign financial markets. Such legislation may be the best available option we have got here in Congress to address oil prices in the short-term. When we do address this issue more fully, however, though, I also want to offer a word of caution. We should be careful not to be too overzealous. While we need to address the London loophole, we must make sure we do not take action that would damage our market-based economy. And finally, I will say this. While we do work on market manipulation, we also need to recognize Congress has other issues to deal with when it comes to the oil price issue. There is no one single factor. As much as folks come down on the floor of the House at times to talk about just one issue, this is a very complex issue that has many dynamics affecting the global price of oil. I think market manipulation is an important one for us to consider, but we also need to look at a more comprehensive package of issues to try to fully address this issue.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you tonight to lead a discussion among the Blue Dog Coalition as we talk about issues of fiscal responsibility, pursuing a balanced budget, and doing the right thing for future generations. I would like to open this discussion by recognizing one of my colleagues, one of the newest members of the Blue Dogs, Mr. Cazayoux from Louisiana, and I would yield to him as much time as he may consume.

Mr. MATHESON. I thank my colleague for his comments, a new Member of this body, but someone who recognizes the importance of fiscal responsibility. I think that it's important to expand on what PAYGO is. This is a term that gets thrown around a lot in Washington, but we really ought to review what it means. And at its basis, it's a pretty simple concept, and that is that if you have new spending, you've got to pay for it. You've got to pay for it by cutting spending elsewhere or raising revenues, but you've got to pay for it. And, you know, this isn't a new concept even here in Washington. It turns out back in 1990, during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, Congress passed legislation to put a pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, policy into effect. And at that time, Congress came together in a bipartisan way and then President Bush signed that into law. And when it was passed, it put us on a path to where decisions had to be made where you had to live within a budget. Everybody in this town can come up with a new idea about how to spend money, both sides of the aisle, everyone can come up with those ideas. It's easy to say yes to that. It's a lot more difficult to say, you know what, we're going to live within a budget. But you know what, we ought to be doing that because that's what everyone in this country does, everyone who runs a business, everyone in their own household budget, everybody does that. So let's look at what happened after passage of that law in 1990. There were a number of other things that happened during the decade of the 1990s. There was a strong economic growth period, the dot-com industry really took off, and a whole series of reasons, including restraint on spending in Washington, allowed us to move from annual deficits to annual surpluses. It was a remarkable period in our country's history to have that transition take place. And it was an exciting time for this country. And it was good for the government's books to be balanced and it was good for our economy, and it led to a stronger dollar. I mention that, and we'll come back to that later in this discussion, because today we all know we're suffering from a rather low dollar situation in the global economy. So if that was such a good idea, if it worked so well, why is it that we aren't having both the House and the Senate live by that same law today? Well, it turns out that law expired at the end of 2001. And that was really unfortunate that it did because it provided that set of constraints, if you will, on Washington--on Congress, on the President, on everybody, on Democrats, on Republicans. It provided that constraint that asked people to live within a budget. And after it expired, I think we all know what happened. You had over 6 years, 2001 through 2006, you had an explosion of spending. You had an explosion of debt. Annual deficits were so large. And over those 6 years, our national debt went from $6 trillion to $9 trillion. Now, you throw these numbers around, it almost gets to the point where it's hard to recognize what they really mean. But I think we all know a trillion dollars is a lot of money. And I think we all know that when you have $6 trillion created through the whole country's history through the first 42 Presidents, and then during the first 6 years of the 43rd President you add another $3 trillion, you're adding a lot of debt in a short amount of time. And PAYGO didn't exist. Spending took off at a huge rate, greatest increase in government spending since the 1960s, in fact. That is what happened during those first 6 years. And the Blue Dog Coalition during all that time said, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let's not get into a deficit mode again. Let's not create more debt that creates a burden on future generations who have to pay the interest on that debt. Let's not ensure high taxes on future generations to pay the interest on the debt. Let's recognize that we have an obligation to future generations that they shouldn't have to pay for obligations that we have created on our watch. But we could never get the PAYGO principles put back into place. We couldn't get a vote to put it into statute. We couldn't get it in a rule of the House of Representatives, either, until January of 2007. There was a change in control in the House of Representatives. And on the first day when we were all sworn in here to take the oath of office for the 110th Congress, we set the rules that we are going to work under during that 2-year session. And in that rule, pay-as-you-go was put in place for the House of Representatives. And I am really proud of the Blue Dog Coalition for taking the lead on pushing that rule to be put in place. It is not easy to live under a budget. The PAYGO rule has been attacked. And yes, there have been a couple of circumstances where it has been waived. But I think that the Blue Dog Coalition deserves a lot of credit for taking a stand, forcing the tough decisions, and quite frankly, creating the dynamic where I think there has been a real restraint on this body in terms of what could have happened instead in terms of additional spending and adding to our national debt. It is at the start of a real challenging period we face in this country, because we all know that as baby boomers retire and additional pressures occur on Social Security and Medicare that it is going to take a very thoughtful and aggressive effort by this body in a bipartisan way to navigate through that challenge and make sure that we maintain fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility. And pay-as-you- go, the PAYGO principles, provide a tool. They provide a tool that would benefit all of us. So this isn't really, again, about Democrats or Republicans. This isn't about trying to place blame on people or anything else. It is really just talking about the fact that if you look at the way we are set up in this country as a government, in the Federal side we are allowed to run deficits. You can have deficits if you don't bring in as much revenues as you spend. In a lot of States, they have constitutional amendments that require a balanced budget. That doesn't exist here in Washington. As a result, as I said earlier, it is easy to spend money. And over the years both parties have shown an ability to spend money. There's no doubt about that. And so we need this external constraint, if you will, of pay-as-you-go. And I will go beyond that to say the Blue Dogs support a balanced budget, as well. That is one of the guiding principles of the Blue Dog Coalition, is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It takes a long time to amend the Constitution. It takes many years to get enough States to ratify and whatnot. And that is an important goal. But pay-as-you-go we can do right away. We've had it as a rule in the House. We would like to see it as a law. We want a statute passed by the House and the Senate because it will serve us all so well. I will close with one more comment. And I will recognize a couple of my colleagues from the Blue Dog Coalition to participate in this discussion. But I just want to come back, as I mentioned, to the issue of the low dollar we have today. When you're borrowing lots of money, and the United States has been borrowing a lot of money from foreign lenders, that devalues the dollar. It's a supply-and-demand issue. And we're having to borrow to pay for so much in this country. And we know that that low dollar has had some serious implications for us. Oil is priced on a dollar-per-barrel basis. The global market is one market for everybody. And as other currencies in the world go up, as the dollar goes down, that means the price per barrel in dollars is going up. That's just one example of where a low-dollar policy can have a serious impact on our economy and on the daily lives of all of us. A strong dollar and a dollar that we can be proud of can be reinforced by public policy that encourages balanced budgets. A government that lives within its means has a stronger currency. And again, that shouldn't be about Democrats or Republicans, or the left or the right. That's about what's right for this country. And that's what the Blue Dogs are about. And that's why I'm proud to be a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, because the Blue Dogs like to look out for what's right for this country. And they take an independent approach. And they want to sit down, roll up their sleeves, tackle these issues and work with everybody on these issues. So that's why we are here tonight, to talk about pay-as-you-go, to talk about the benefits of this country. I have been joined by some of my other Blue Dog colleagues. And I would like to now recognize my good friend and colleague from the State of Georgia, Representative David Scott, for as much time as he might consume.

Mr. MATHESON. I want to thank my colleague from Georgia for those words. He is an excellent member of the Blue Dog Coalition. And Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield back my portion to let Mr. Boyd control the rest of the 60 minutes if I could.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot of concern about PAYGO. I have to tell you that when it comes to having credibility on this issue, as someone who is not a particularly partisan person, I always like to work on both sides of the aisle, I am a little upset that we are hearing this criticism about PAYGO from a group of folks who when they were in charge let the law expire. It is a law that existed for 12 years. It helped move us from deficits to surpluses. It moved us on the glide path to where we wouldn't be burdening future generations with debt, and that law expired. The bottom line is that law as it was written would have allowed this unemployment compensation legislation to go through under emergency spending. Now, the way that the law is written in this Congress, quite frankly, I think the law wasn't crafted properly because it should have allowed this to be emergency spending. That is why I, as a Blue Dog, am comfortable with this bill. But let me assure you, actions speak louder than words. There are so many words that get thrown out on the floor of the House, but actions speak louder than words. And the actions are this: who cares about deficits, who thinks deficits matter? I am not sure that the other side of the aisle does, and their track record demonstrates that. We've seen debt go up by $3 trillion during the first 6 years of the Bush administration with a Republican Congress. Come on, we shouldn't be criticized about our good-faith efforts to try to encourage PAYGO and live within our means. If we have not been perfect on this side of the aisle, we have made the effort. And I have heard no response from the other side whenever we bring up a bill that is paid for to offer an alternative that is also paid for. So if you really care about your future generations, which I do, I think of my two young sons, and I think about the debt burden that we are placing on them, I think that we have a moral obligation to do the right thing for future generations. So please, let's tone down the rhetoric a little and let's acknowledge that if you really care about deficits, instead of just talking about it, do something about it. This side of the aisle has attempted to do something about it in this Congress. They established a PAYGO rule. I am proud of the fact that the Democratic Caucus has done that, and we should all work together because it shouldn't be a partisan issue. If you care about deficits, whether you're Democrat or Republican, let's work together and let's secure the future for our children.

Mr. MATHESON

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

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Chairman, this amendment is an effort to refine the reporting of requirements in the legislation for schools that receive grants under this program relative to the flooring that is installed in these schools. Schools and local educational agencies receiving grants under this bill would report if they install flooring, whether it was low or no volatile organic compounds flooring; whether it was made from sustainable materials, and report on the cost effective nature of that decision to install that type of flooring. I just want to be clear though. This amendment is not a mandate. It doesn't require schools to install any particular type of flooring. It really is a purpose just to gather information to find out if or not this material has been used in the installation process. One of the motivations behind this amendment is to ensure that we raise this issue about the opportunity for both children and teachers who are in schools, that they are put in the best learning and teaching environment possible. The reason for that is because materials such as flooring in some schools can contain potentially unhealthy levels of volatile organic compounds that can lead to unsafe indoor air quality for both students and teachers. Again, I think this is a relatively straightforward amendment just to increase the reporting requirements to say what happened in terms of how the flooring was required. It does not require any particular type of flooring to be installed, but it helps us gather information and raise awareness about the benefits of using low or no volatile organic compound flooring. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON. Just very briefly, Madam Chairman. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit Daybreak Elementary School in West Jordan, Utah, the first LEED-certified school in our State. In that location this school used low VOC paint and carpet. I think that there are a number of issues we need to be talking about in this Congress today. But I do think the notion of having a safe indoor environment for teachers and students has merit, and actually collecting data and reporting what type of materials are used in school construction makes sense. I urge adoption of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MATHESON

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

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. First I would like to commend Chairwoman Velazquez, Ranking Member Chabot and the Small Business Committee, as well as Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall and the Science and Technology Committee, for all their hard work in bringing this important bill to the floor today. I think we all agree that the U.S. economy is built on the growth and success of small businesses and we in Congress should continue to look for ways that we can support small business so it can succeed. That is why I am offering an amendment to H.R. 5819 today. My amendment helps incentivize energy efficient practices for small businesses by rewarding business that seek to reduce their costs through a reduced carbon footprint. This amendment gives priorities to applicants of SBIR, STTR and FAST grants that have demonstrated an ability to reduce their carbon footprint. Many small businesses have already developed practices to reduce their carbon footprint. By adopting energy efficient practices, they are reducing costs for themselves in the long run and making themselves more competitive with other businesses. A number of companies in my home State of Utah have benefited from SBIR grants. One such company is TechniScan, which has developed a technology intended to aid physicians in diagnosing breast cancer. It has already adopted certain practices to reduce its energy usage and hence reduce its carbon footprint. Many other small businesses across the country have likewise reduced their carbon footprint and would therefore be given priority for receiving these grants under my amendment. I have worked to help government and private entities alike conserve energy. As cochair of the Green Schools Caucus, I have worked with schools to become more energy efficient, which reduces their costs. Small businesses that also seek to reduce their carbon footprint should be rewarded for their efforts as well. This amendment will help position small businesses better as they continue to grow and expand while reducing their energy costs. Again, thank you to Chairwoman Velazquez, Ranking Member Chabot, Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished Chair of the Small Busi- ness Committee, Congresswoman Velazquez.

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

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of an important program to my district and my state which has been consistently flat funded for the past seven years: the Head Start program. As you know, Head Start is an early childhood program with a proven track record of providing comprehensive developmental, educational, health, nutritional, and social services to low-income preschool children and their families, giving them the tools they need to succeed. By emphasizing parental involvement, Head Start also benefits the entire family and the broader community. For decades, Head Start has served thousands low-income children and their families in Utah, ensuring that they are educationally, socially and medically ready for school. I have always been a strong supporter of Head Start. After years of stalemate on proposed changes to the program, I was pleased to vote for a reauthorization this May, and again in final passage this November, that includes expanded coverage for low-income children, increased funding for teacher and staff salaries and professional development, and strong accountability measures to better ensure that Head Start funds are used appropriately and efficiently. This bill, HR 1429, was signed into law by the President on December 12, 2007. I have appreciated working with countless Utah parents, teachers, and administrators on the importance of the program but also on ways to make it stronger and meet the needs of the community. These perspectives and stories have enhanced my understanding of the valuable role Head Start plays in the lives of disadvantaged children. I believe that Head Start is a program with a long-term record of success with enrollment correlating to IQ gains, improved high school graduation rates and higher achievement in writing, vocabulary and social skills. I applaud my colleague, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for calling attention to this important program.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 2464, the Wakefield Act. I am the lead sponsor of this legislation, along with Representative Peter T. King on the other side of the aisle. Today, the hospital emergency department is such a fundamental part of our health system that it's easy to forget that emergency medicine is a relatively new specialty. Emergency rooms were first established in the 1970s as medical personnel returned from the Vietnam War. The skills developed to save soldiers' lives on the battlefield were being put to use saving victims of car crashes and other traumas. However, the bodies of adult soldiers are very different from those of kids. By the early 1980s, doctors were seeing marked disparities in survival rates among adults and children with similar injuries. In fact, kids had twice the death rate in emergencies as adults. In 1984, the Emergency Medical Services for Children program was first created. This unique act has driven fundamental changes in America's emergency medical system. Since it was established, child injury death rates have dropped 40 percent. The research that resulted from this legislation helped establish pediatric emergency medicine as its own specialty. Program grants have provided seed money to every State and territory to help first responders and hospitals improve children's emergency care. In the mid-1980s, emergency personnel received little training in caring for children. Now, thanks to this program, paramedics can be exclusively trained, and their ambulances are stocked with the equipment and supplies needed by seriously injured kids. Nowhere has this been more critical than in rural areas where the closest emergency room is often many miles from the scene of an accident. Getting it right for these small patients in the first critical minutes often means the difference between life and death. Data collection and training seminars offered under this program, including from the Emergency Medical Services for Children Data Analysis Resource Center based in my district at the University of Utah, help ensure that best practices are developed and disseminated across the country. The Emergency Medical Services for Children program's authorization expired in September 2005. In the summer of 2006, the Institutes of Medicine released a report which documented the value of this program. It noted the gaps that still remain in providing quality emergency care for children. And there is still a serious gap between the percentage of kids who end up in the emergency room and the percentage of emergency rooms staffed, trained and equipped to respond appropriately. The report said this program is ``well positioned to assume a leadership role'' in closing this gap. I am pleased that H.R. 2464, the Wakefield Act, has bipartisan and bicameral support, including support from 75 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives. The bill is endorsed by over 50 organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Medical Association, the Emergency Nurses Association, and many more. Madam Speaker, this legislation enhances the program by authorizing the appropriate funding needed to ensure the program can drive improvements in emergency and disaster care for children. Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the bipartisan nature in which this bill moved through our committee, working on both sides of the aisle within the Energy and Commerce Committee. We worked together to make this bill as good as it can be. Madam Speaker, nobody likes to see a child get hurt. Together, we can assure that when that happens, children have the best possible chance for recovery and a good outcome. I strongly urge the adoption of this legislation.

Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, once again the Science Committee brings to the House floor a bill that makes sense, that was developed in a bipartisan way. It's a great tradition of this committee, and I think Members on both sides of the aisle on that committee know what a great committee it is to work on. And I want to thank Congressman Mitchell, in particular, for taking the lead on this issue, because his approach really fits into the Science Committee approach about how we look at issues, and we try to work together in a bipartisan way to make progress. And that's why I'm happy to stand up and offer my support for this bill today. In the grand scheme of things, one of the reasons why I think this is incredibly important is that the United States has one of the highest fire-related death rates among all industrialized nations. Think about that. With all the technology we have in this country, all the safety measures, we still rank so poorly among industrialized nations in terms of fire-related deaths. And this legislation takes a step in terms of trying to address that problem. Now, I come from a western State, the State of Utah; and in the West, we have particular danger in terms of forest fires. This legislation fully funds the National Fire Incident Reporting System, which is going to help the U.S. Fire Administration prevent future forest fires. Currently, we're only able to capture data from 50 percent of wildfires, which just is not enough. By improving the incident reporting system, the U.S. Fire Administration will be able to speed up the reporting data, generating a more comprehensive database. In practical terms, that's going to mean better analysis, greater fire prevention, and fewer lives lost. And, in particular, this bill, if enacted, will expand the program to include training in wildland-urban interface areas. And this is an issue that's particularly important in western States where, as population growth has taken place, there has been greater development of housing that's moved more into where the forest exists; and that's a critical problem during these wildfire incidents is how we deal with fire issues in that very sensitive area. Most of my congressional district faces this problem, and my congressional district is not unusual compared to most of the West. I believe better training in terms of this wildland-urban interface will be a huge asset to Fire Departments in similar areas. So Mr. Chairman, I want to again thank you for your leadership on this issue. I thank Chairman Gordon and ranking member Hall. I thank Chairman Wu from the subcommittee. I thank Congressman Mitchell for his leadership. I know Mr. Gingrey's been a leader on this issue as well. And again, the Science Committee, as usual, comes up with a bill that makes sense. I'm sure it will be adopted today, and I urge all my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. MATHESON

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, during my time in this job, I have met with many Utah families, teachers and health professionals about their struggle with autism. I have visited the special education classrooms where dedicated teachers work with youngsters who have been diagnosed as autistic, as well as met with families desperately searching out medical options for their children. I have learned from this that more data, more research and more public education are imperative in order to help these families create a future for their children. In Utah, one in every 133 kids has autism. That is the third highest rate among 14 States, according to a 2007 CDC study. Nationally, 67 children are diagnosed with autism every single day, which costs our country $90 billion a year. I am humbled to represent the Utah family that has the highest number of cases of autism in a single-family in the entire United States, six children. As a member of the Autism Caucus and as a cosponsor of the resolution declaring April National Autism Month, I have been a strong advocate for increased research dollars to help us provide more answers about this disorder and the hardship it inflicts on families. Awareness is only a first step, but every step forward brings us closer I hope to improved diagnosis and treatment of autism.