Barbara Cubin

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland who just preceded me said that this impasse has occurred because of the Republican Party, the majority in Congress, wants to give tax breaks to the wealthy. That is simply not the truth. The truth is this impasse has occurred because the majority of this Congress, both the House and the Senate, want a balanced budget in 7 years. The President signed Public Law 104-56, and I would like to read that. It says, ``The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than the fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.'' The fact is the President does not want a balanced budget. The President's extremist liberal agenda and the extremist liberal agenda of Democrats on this side of the aisle simply cannot go forward with a balanced budget, because their agenda costs more than the money that we have coming into the Congress. That would leave us with two alternatives. We would have to increase taxes to support that agenda that the President insists upon, and continue to go deeper and deeper into debt, thus mortgaging our children's future, selling our children out. We have all heard the saying, ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' The President has introduced four budgets. None of them have been balanced. The most nearly balanced was $87 billion in the red. Two of those unbalanced budgets came after he signed into law that he would balance the budget. His actions show that he is not a man that can be taken at his word. Character counts. When you say something, and then go on and sign into law something that you say you will do and then act in bad faith in these negotiations by refusing any attempt to reach a compromise, then that is character. We are described, all of the Republican freshman, as extremist radicals. The fact is all we are asking for is a balanced budget in 7 years based on CBO numbers. That is all we are asking for. That is why that impasse is here. That is why the Government is not open. Everything else is open for negotiation. Everything. The level of tax cuts is open. Medicare is open. Welfare reform. Everything is open for negotiation. The only thing where we will not compromise is on balancing the budget, because we are committed to the future of this country. We are committed to our children and our grandchildren, and we want them to be able to have at least as good a life as we have had. The President said he vetoed our appropriations bill because we cut Medicare too much. Let me take you back in history about 18 months ago when Hillary Clinton was proposing health care reform. What was stated between Hillary Clinton and the President at that time was, ``My opponents will say that I am cutting Medicare, but that's not true. All we want to do is to slow the growth in Medicare from 11 percent to between 6 and 7 percent.'' That is what Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton said 18 months ago. Our proposal is higher and spends more money on Medicare than their proposal said only 18 months ago. This is a transparent excuse to have vetoed the bill. This is pure and simple not wanting to balance the budget. We have to face that, and we have to get the President to tell the truth about what his intentions are. At least he has to put something on the table so that we will have a point to negotiate from. I urge all Members to continue on insisting on a balanced budget and, remember, everything else is up for negotiation once the President will give us a balanced budget to work from.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the continuing resolution, and I admit I am a freshman, but I cannot help but be amazed at what I am hearing here tonight. I am hearing that the Republicans are being irresponsible because we do not have these bills to the President already, while I have heard that there are two separate years while the other side was in control that we operated on a continuing resolution for an entire year, and that happened twice. I do not understand why they are so worried that we are not going to get our work done. We are certain we are going to get our work done. We are offering this continuing resolution because we want the Government to stay in business. We do not want the lives of the employees, the Federal employees, to be turned upside down, not to mention that of the recipients. Mr. Speaker, another thing I have heard tonight, and I really just cannot believe I heard it right, is that we have to dismiss the issue of breast cancer and we have to dismiss the issue of prostate cancer as smoking mirrors; that it is not important. Well, I want to tell my colleagues something, Mr. Speaker. It is important to me. My aunt died of breast cancer. I have five friends who have died of breast cancer. And in this continuing resolution we are offering Tamoxifen, an oral anti-cancer drug, for women to be able to take. It works in about 50 percent of the breast cancer cases. Again, I am absolutely appalled that we cannot consider this issue any time. It has already been told to us tonight that it will save $156 million. It will save lives. There is a statistic I would like to point out to Members, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is very startling and it will open everyone's eyes. In the 12 years of the Vietnam war about 58,000 Americans died. During those same 12 years 426,000 women died of breast cancer and nobody noticed. 426,000. I do not care what bill we offer this cancer drug on. I am going to support it. It is important. We are not trying to twist the President's arm. Karen Curtis, Trudy Wilson, Freda McCoy, Barbara Clare, and Chris Linn, my friends who are dead from breast cancer and their families, would all want us to support this so that we can offer this life saving drug to patients of breast cancer that are now on Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this continuing resolution.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Amendments Act of 1995. I am joined in this effort by Mr. Cremeans and several other colleagues all of whom share my interest in reinforcing the [[Page E 1832]] original intent of the 1977 statute: To place with the primacy States the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate surface coal mining operations within their borders. The bill will clarify the respective roles of the Federal and State governments, avoid costly and inefficient duplication in inspection and enforcement and establish clearer lines as to the activities subject to the law. When the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act [SMCRA] was enacted in 1977, it was hailed as a model of cooperative federalism. It established a set of pervasive environmental and reclamation performance standards for all surface and underground mines in the United States. It also included provisions to allow each coal producing State which was able to demonstrate that it had adequate laws and organizations in place to assume primary responsibility for regulating coal mining operations with its State. Since that time, 23 of the 26 coal producing States have assumed the role as the SMCRA regulatory authority. Unfortunately, The Office of Surface Mining [OSM] has proven reluctant to live up to this statutory promise and hand over fully the reins of regulation to these primacy States. Instead, OSM has perpetuated a dual regulatory scheme by its policies that entail daily interference through the issuance of notice of violations [NOV's] directly to coal mine operators in primacy States. The original act was clear that OSM's oversight role did not allow such pervasive intervention. OSM is only authorized to issue a cessation order for serious violations constituting an imminent harm or danger to the public or environment. Otherwise, OSM was to evaluate State performance, and if dissatisfied, initiate proceedings to substitute either Federal enforcement or a Federal program for all or part of the State program. OSM's policies have ignored the careful balance of authority by intervening every day in State program matters by issuing notice of violations directly to operators anytime OSM disagrees with a State's view of program requirements. This practice has victimized coal mine operators caught in the middle of Federal-State disputes; perpetuated a scheme of dual and conflicting program administration; caused regulatory uncertainty and confusion, and bred disrespect for the States and the law itself. As one Federal court observed, OSM's practice has upset SMCRA's fragile balance ``between the federal and state roles with its trampling of the state's right to enforce its laws.'' Fincastle Mining Inc. v. Babbitt, 842 F.Supp. 204, 209 (W.D. Va. 1993). A poignant example of this problem occurred in 1993 when OSM challenged one of Wyoming's existing permit conditions at the Black Thunder Mine as it related to its rough backfilling and grading plan. OSM wanted to issue an order requiring Black Thunder to mine and reclaim in a manner that practically speaking could not be achieved and which was actually based on an outdated rule. After the mine submitted a modified mining and reclamation plan to the State agency, the State requested that it delay its backfilling and grading until it had an opportunity to review the plan revisions. In the meantime, OSM issued a 10-day notice to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality in an effort to pressure the State into bringing enforcement action against the mine. The State rigorously opposed OSM's efforts. Yet only after extensive time and resources were expended on the issue did OSM finally agree that the issue was programmatic rather than regulatory and dropped its threat. The amendments act will clarify that OSM does not have the authority to issue notice of violations in primacy States unless and until it has followed the procedures set forth in the 1977 law to substitute Federal enforcement for the State program. The act's legislative history confirms the original intent that notice-of-violation authority belonged only to the regulatory authority and operators need to know who that regulatory authority is at any particular time--OSM or the States. My legislation will further restore meaning to the concept of State primary by codifying the well- established principle that the approved State program is the law applicable in that State. Permits issued pursuant to those State programs would be the benchmark for compliance until modified in accordance with the permit revisions procedures of the State program. This legislation is also intended to avoid regulatory duplication among various programs, require greater efficiency in enforcement actions and streamline the administrative appeal process for agency actions. Since the passage of SMCRA, the number of producing mines has declined by more than 50 percent and the States have assumed the primary role for implementing SMCRA for 97 percent of the Nation's mines and production. However, the agency overseeing the States, OSM, has not changed significantly in terms of its size or duplicative role. The agency still has substantially more personnel than it had 12 years ago when the States assumed primacy. As a result, the agency has sought to expand its reach to other activities such as regulating public roads, attempting to assume the role of separate agencies vested with authority to administer the Clean Water Act and raising stale matters as possible violations of SMCRA. My amendments to the act will clarify that: public roads are not subject to regulation; the authority to administer the Clean Water Act at coal mines belongs to the regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act and not SMCRA; and, place a 3-year time limitation upon commencing actions for alleged violations. Finally, the legislation would remove an extra and inefficient layer of administrative review of agency decisions before seeking review in court. The extra layer of administrative appeals is a creature of OSM's regulations and not mandated by the existing statute. In summation, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Amendments Act of 1995 would reinforce the federalist scheme of the original law and restore true meaning to the concept of State primacy.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to explain one more thing. My district, my State, is 98,000 square miles. As I said, much of it is owned in this checkerboard fashion. So it makes it very difficult to have volunteers go out and have control over them. If you are going to cover 98,000 square miles with volunteers that are closely supervised, why not just have the supervisors count the flora and fauna on the public lands and leave the private land alone.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, many of these places have not been surveyed. Many of these sections have not been surveyed. So it requires a professional to know what is private land and what is public land. Again, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of square miles that are owned in this way without markers, without corner posts, so that people will know where the land is. That is why I am saying that is is necessary that professionals do the counting in the West, and that is the reason for the chairman's amendment, and I think the chairman's amendment is good, and I hope you will defeat the amendment on the floor.

Mrs. CUBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mrs. CUBIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak adamantly against the proposal, the amendment that is on the floor. First of all, I want to make it very clear that none of us oppose the use of volunteers, and I think those who have any honesty on the other side really do know that. But we are opposed to using volunteers when the work product that is produced is not adequate and is not accurate. It has been asked several times, well, just exactly what is the problem? Well, I am here to tell you what the problem is. I am from the West, and I notice that people who have spoken in favor of this amendment are from Maine and Maryland and Massachusetts and Michigan and New York. And what they do not understand about places like Wyoming and Nevada and Utah is the ownership configuration of the land. It is a checkerboard configuration. Forty acres is about 2.2 square miles. So every other 2.2 square miles is privately owned, and then publicly owned, privately owned, and then publicly owned. So when volunteers go out, they, unknowingly, possibly, go on to private land and violate private property rights. That is a problem, because this boils down to private property rights. Many, many times, in their zeal to protect and preserve the resource, they show little respect for private property rights. They also, again, with all the best intentions, sometimes have a subjective bias to the resource that they are counting. That is why they are there, because that is their interest. So they have a subjective bias, and most have their own environmental bias, which tends to totally disregard private property rights.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation being introduced today by Mr. Hansen of Utah to transfer lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management to the States. I appreciate the efforts that Mr. Hansen and Senator Thomas of Wyoming have put into this legislation and as an original cosponsor of the bill, I will do what I can to help move it quickly through the legislative channels. In my opinion, this legislation is long overdue. Not since the Sagebrush Rebellion has there been such a groundswell of support for returning the lands to the States. As the 1994 election results have shown, the majority of Americans want to reduce the role of the Federal Government and grant the States more flexibility to arrive at localized solutions to a host of problems. The better the local understanding, the better the decision made by those most affected by a local problem. With this legislation, the Western States are asking nothing more than to be put on an equal footing with the Eastern States. We want a stable tax base and we can and will see to it that our lands are more efficiently managed and more beneficially used. That includes protecting the scenic beauty of our States while promoting the wise use of our natural resources. For too long, the Federal Government has forgotten that the Western States are its partners. It is time for us to send a clear signal that we are tired of the historical Federal dominance that has left the West in a state of political and economic decline. This legislation is the proper vehicle for examining how to best end Federal ownership of the vast areas of the West and return stability to that region of our country.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, any women who has conceived a child, carried the child for 9 months, and then given birth to that child knows that life does begin at conception. Human life begins at conception. I have heard it said several times over and over and over here today that a woman has a right to have an abortion. The fact is the Supreme Court declared that it was not unconstitutional to get an abortion, but it did not make abortion a right for anyone to have, although we know that everyone ought to have the right to live. Federal funding for abortions and allowing abortions to be performed on U.S. military bases is just as wrong as taking the life of a small child. We depend upon the military might of this country to protect all its citizens, not just those who make it through the first 9 months of their life. We use the Armed Forces to protect the innocent, to protect the weak and the defenseless. Does that describe anyone that I have been talking about? That means children, Mr. Chairman. The military is there to protect the defenseless and the young from life to the grave. We are also being asked to condone the taking of an unborn child's life on a U.S. military base, the very bases from which we are supposed to defend the lives of all Americans. That does not make much sense to me. Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, the taking of an unborn child's life is totally senseless. When we consider that only 5 percent of the pregnancies that occur are a result of rape, incest, or failed birth control, that means people need to make responsible decisions about preventing pregnancies if they do not want to have a child. Mr. Chairman, I will vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I hope the rest of my colleagues will, too.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 and urge my colleagues that if they have not already done so to cosponsor this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, as with most bills that are introduced in this body, this legislation is not perfect; it could use a bit of fine tuning. But we must start somewhere if we are to defeat Rangeland Reform 94 and provide long-term stability for the Federal lands livestock industry and rural communities across the West. The Livestock Graving Act of 1995 gives us just one more opportunity to deliver on our promise to change the way the Federal Government manages our public lands and turn more of that responsibility over to the States. We can and should act now to pass this legislation; unless we do so by August 21, the entire livestock industry is at risk. I would also like to point out that for quite some time the Wyoming public lands management model had divided the stewards that live on the land and the communities whose economies are dependent on that resource. But after having reviewed this proposal in some detail, I am pleased to report that those same divided factions have endorsed this grazing proposal for the good of the whole. They have told me in the strongest of terms that ``the act may need a little work, but it is far superior to rangland reform.'' I could not agree more and will do everything I can to see that this bill is enacted into law. This bill is the product of many hours of work by various National and State representatives of the livestock industry, and numerous Members of Congress and their staffs and I thank them for their efforts. I would particularly like to thank all of those in Wyoming who took time out of their busy schedules to come to Washington to work on this bill. It is a good bill and I hope that we will move it swiftly through Congress.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Just like any animal in the species, any mammal, when you take away their freedom and their dignity and their ability, they cannot provide for themselves, and that is what the Democrats' proposal does on welfare. Let us give our folks dignity and initiative and jobs.

Mrs. CUBIN. No, I will not yield. What a great idea. Give more welfare.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the alligator analogy was hissed and booed, I thought I should bring up another story that is near and dear to my State. My home State is Wyoming, and recently the Federal Government introduced wolves into the State of Wyoming, and they put them in pens and they brought elk and venison to them every day. This is what I call the wolf welfare program. The Federal Government introduced them and they have since then provided shelter and they have provided food, they have provided everything that the wolves need for their existence. Guess what? They opened the gate to let the wolves out and now the wolves will not go. They are cutting the fence down to make the wolves go out and the wolves will not go. What has happened with the wolves, just like what happens with human beings, when you take away their incentives, when you take away their freedom, when you take away their dignity, they have to be provided for. The biologists are now giving incentives outside of the gates, trying to get them out. What a great idea.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, it is a personal disappointment and affront to me that Members of the minority party persist in their attack on our plan to provide nutritious meals to the Nation's schoolchildren. They claim that by block granting the nutrition programs thousands of children will starve. In plain English, that claim is a life and they know it. Funding for the School Lunch Program will increase by 4\1/2\ percent per year, that rate is above inflation but below what liberal Democrats think it should be so they label it a cut. Using accounting methods like this that has us headed for a debtor's prison without a get-out-of-jail-free card. The only thing we will cut is a layer of Federal bureaucracy in the nutrition programs which will save money and allow the States to do what they do so well, take care of their citizens. The basic difference in philosophies is all too clear on this issue, after 40 years, Democrats cannot bear the thought of independent States, I myself have all the faith in the world in the ability of our State and local officials.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I will be very brief. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring this down to terms that we can all relate to in a real sense rather than a theoretical sense. First of all, I need to say this legislation is needed to remedy a fundamental wrong, and that is that the Federal Government forces property owners to shoulder the entire cost of public benefits such as preserving wetlands, conserving endangered species, and that sort of thing. Now when we talk about the difference between 10 and 30 percent for compensation, I want to give you an example of something that happened in my district. There is a home builder in the area in the Jackson Hole trying to provide some badly needed housing. But the EPA came in and the Corps of Engineers came in, both of whom administer section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and they stopped all development. There were 6 houses practically complete. They threatened to tear them down. Three more foundations had been poured. They would not allow those houses to be built. In fact, they had to remove the foundations. Twenty-two homes in all were planned for this, and the whole thing came to a stop. Even at 10 percent, the owner would have lost over $250,000. Now, when we go to 30 percent, we are talking about a $750,000 loss. It is not unusual to have a farm or a ranch that is valued at $300,000. Again, 10 percent is a huge loss, but 30 percent can put them out of business. I stand opposed to the Goss amendment, and I hope it will be defeated.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I find myself compelled to rise and speak once again on behalf of truth and against the untrue accusations from the other side of the aisle. In no uncertain terms, the Republicans in Congress do not intend to deprive school children of nutritious meals. Less than a week ago a Wyoming newspaper's headlines read ``GOP Hopes To Abolish School Lunch Programs. Democrats Say Children May from the truth and the Democrats know it. Funding for school lunch programs will increase by 4.5 percent each year over the next 5 years. That is not a figure that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the school lunch program will be eliminated. Block granting the school lunch program will give the States more control to spend the funds where they are most needed. And by requiring States to use at least 80 percent of the funds for meals for low-income children, no one should be afraid that children will go hungry. The school lunch program will not be eliminated. Now, eliminating the jobs of the Federal bureaucrats who micromanage the nutrition programs is an excellent idea. That is one way to save money in Washington for food for kids. Let the Democrats take care of the bureaucrats--the Republicans will care for the children.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I am standing here today, and I am going to come back and I am going to stand here every day until we get this bill passed or until they start telling the truth. The truth is, if Members wanted to know who cares about feeding children in America, the Republicans care. I am a mother. I have served school lunches myself. I have cooked the food. I have taken the food there to serve it. There is no one in Washington who wants to take care of the school children in Wyoming and across the country more than I do and more than my colleagues do. The truth of the matter is, my colleagues, that we are spending more money for school lunches. We are allowing the people who really care about the people who knows what their needs are in the States to make the decisions that affect those children. We are allowing families to take over feeding their children again. The School Lunch Program does not just feed poor children. It feeds people's children who do not need money in order to supplement the cost. That is wrong. We need to take care of the people who need it, and that is best decided at the States.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to understand, and I want them to understand clearly, spending for the school meal programs will actually increase next year by at least 4 percent. In addition, cutting an entire layer of Washington bureaucracy and limiting administrative costs of these programs by 2 percent will give more money to be spent on food programs. Listen to this, the Republican proposal spends more money on the school lunch program and the school breakfast programs. Now, let us talk about who really cares here. There are 535 people in this organization in Washington here who make decisions for the whole country. There are three people who really care about the people in Wyoming, and the number of delegates that you have in your States that really care or know you. There are thousands of people in the State of Wyoming who care about feeding children, who care about our future, who care about our seniors, and those folks at home are responsive, and they will do a better job feeding our children than the Federal Government will.

Mrs. CUBIN

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

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, with regard to rollcall vote number 6 on section 101 of House Resolution 6, I would like to clarify that I voted in support of the reforms to reduce the number of committees, subcommittees and number of staff. However, I was just informed that my vote was not officially recorded on the vote board. I wish to make clear that I voted ``yea'' on this vote. personal explanation

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for eliminating the misguided, but long-held, congressional practice of allowing absentee proxy votes to take place in committee. Putting an end to these absentee proxy votes is a crucial part of fulfilling our pledge to the American people to create a more open and truly representative Congress. It is an important early step along the path of momentous change and reform that will put the people's government back on the right track. Like many of my colleagues, I am opposed to this practice which allows on individual to cast a vote in committee on behalf of another member. The people of this country have the right to expect and demand that those of us in Congress carry out the job we sent here to do-- namely, make the tough choices and cast our votes in person. Furthermore, I have an additional, and somewhat unique, reason for objecting to proxy voting. I am the lone representative in the U.S. House of Representatives from the State of Wyoming. I do not want a California proxy vote cancelling my vote.