Barbara Cubin

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, in April 1997, John Hirth of Buffalo, Wyoming, and his co-pilot lost their lives when their air tanker crashed near Blandburg, Pennsylvania. They were on a firefighting mission for a government agency, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. At the time, John was making an aerial scouting of the fire, referred to as a dry run. Fire conditions were gusty, and turbulent wind patterns resulted from the fire itself. Immediately after dropping the fire retardant, their tanker encountered smoke which affected visibility. Just as the air tanker flew out of the smoke, its right wing hit an oak tree which stood above the tree line. The aircraft rolled 90 degrees left and flew into the mountainside a quarter mile from the initial tree strike, exploding on impact and instantly killing John and his copilot. In the mid-1990s, John tried to obtain life insurance through various agencies. He was turned down due to his occupation as an aerial firefighter. At the time of his death, the business still had to meet payments on the 1997 fire contract operation (which included liability insurance, contract-paid pilots, fuel, oil, parts, etc.), as well as on a second tanker and one sprayer aircraft. The financial loss from this crash was so devastating that his wife, Connie, did not have the money to pay for her husband's funeral. While this is heartbreaking to us, it is a very stark reality that many families face when aerial firefighters are lost in the line of duty. The fact is that the vast majority of those pilots lost were serving under a government contract at the time. They were providing aerial fire suppression services for the government when they lost their lives. My reason for being here today is to correct a provision in law that is blatantly unfair. I am re-introducing legislation that will provide some financial security to aerial firefighters and their families. This legislation recognizes all pilots and crew involved in aerial fire suppression as public safety officers. In doing so, the bill makes these deserving individuals eligible for death benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, also known as PSOB. Under current law, aerial firefighters who are under contract with the government are not afforded these benefits simply because they work for private companies that contract with the government. However, without these contract pilots and crew, the federal government would not have the capabilities to deal with wild land fires. This legislation is a matter of common sense. Aerial firefighters are public safety officers in every sense of the word. With dedication and enthusiasm, they protect our natural resources, our communities, and often our very lives. Every day, when our men and women in the Armed Forces go out to do their job, they say to us, ``I am willing to risk my life for you today.'' Our local police officers say it as well and, yes my friends, so too do aerial firefighters. John Hirth was the primary wage earner in his air tanker business and his family. If PSOB had been available to them at the time of John' s death, the financial hardships endured by his wife could have been minimized. It is time we start giving back to aerial firefighters because, if we don't, we will be losing a valuable resource. With no aerial firefighters to protect our natural resources, where will we turn? I don't think any of us want to face that question, so let's make sure we don't. Please support this legislation. It is the right thing to do.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate the birthday of one of the true heroines of our country, Susan B. Anthony. Best known for being a pioneer of the women's movement, Susan B. Anthony dedicated her life to fight for equal rights for women and was instrumental in helping women gain the right to vote. Unfortunately, it is often forgotten that Susan B. Anthony was a strong pro-life advocate. Her respect for the rights of the unborn sprung from her profound belief that all humans deserve equal protection under the law. As a pro-life woman, I can identify with Susan B. Anthony. I too wish to protect and nurture human life in every stage of development. Susan B. Anthony embodied true compassion as a defender of women and protector of children. In honoring the memory of Susan B. Anthony, let us acknowledge that to be pro-life is to be pro-woman.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, it's been about a year since we last debated broadcast indecency before the House. I was pleased to have supported the passage of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act then, and I look forward to its passage again this year. Sometimes it takes a couple of swings of the bat before we can get a hit and enact a bill into law. That's why I want to recognize Chairman Upton and Chairman Barton for sticking to their guns on this bill and bringing it before the House so promptly this year. Hopefully this time, the other body will choose to debate and pass this bill, so it can become the law of the land. Many have come to the floor to explain what the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act will do. But, instead of rehashing the nuts and bolts of this bill, I would rather discuss how it will improve the airwaves. No one questions that there is an increasing coarseness in broadcast media. And by increasing fines so they will actually act as a deterrent, instead of a slap on the wrist, I am confident we will see real results. In fact, since this bill was first introduced in the last Congress, people have actually been more conscientious about what they send over the airwaves, and the FCC has been more active in penalizing those who have violated the standard. Passing this bill will lock that in, and serve as a benchmark in an improving broadcast medium. I also want to urge passage of the manager's amendment that incorporates an amendment that I proposed to the bill. My amendment will ensure that the FCC regularly updates its Industry Guidance Regarding Broadcast Decency document, which was last updated April 6, 2001. This document helps illustrate precedents to FCC licensees, and I imagine it is required reading for anyone who is affected by the increase in indecency fines. Since we are increasing the fines in this bill, it only seems right to ensure there are clear guidelines. My amendment will make certain these guidelines are contemporary, and I want to thank Chairman Upton for working with me to incorporate the Cubin language into his amendment. I urge passage of H.R. 310, and the manager's amendment.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, on September 11th, the terrorists didn't just use box cutters and airplanes to attack America, they used our own laws against us to help them murder thousands of people. H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, will fix these loopholes in current law and also take steps to close gaping holes in our land borders, which are the first line of defense against terrorist infiltration, not just for the border states, but also for my home state of Wyoming and the rest of the nation. We all know how the 9/11 terrorists manipulated our asylum laws to stay in our country, and utilized lax drivers' license standards to help them carry out their plans. We know that human traffickers continue to take advantage of the gaps in our borders, helping terrorist and criminal aliens gain entry into our country. Yet some still question the need to turn this invaluable knowledge into meaningful action. As an original cosponsor of the REAL ID Act, I ask my colleagues to look beyond the false rhetoric that has clouded this debate and realize what is really at stake--the safety and security of our nation. I refuse to gamble with the lives of American citizens, rolling the dice on flawed policies that have already failed to protect us against terrorism. Today we have the opportunity--and more importantly, the responsibility--to pass this legislation and make the terrorist handbook obsolete.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, my home State of Wyoming is the least populated State in this Nation but a proud provider of many of the resources on which America depends. Wyoming and our neighboring States produce the bulk of our Nation's agricultural and energy resources. We have vast deposits of coal, uranium, and natural gas. Significant portions of our Nation's power plants, pipelines, highways, and railroads cross Wyoming and rural States. We manage and preserve national parks and landmarks, where countless numbers of visitors can be found at any given time. But perhaps most importantly, however, rural America houses our military landbased nuclear weapons, which are absolutely necessary for our Nation's defense system. I had submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules to ensure our first responders in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Colorado, which house America's nuclear arsenal, had the resources they needed to prepare for a possible threat against these nuclear weapons. In rural America, first responders cannot even communicate sometimes between one department and another like policemen and firemen. We have not had the money to develop those communication systems yet. We have started, but with lower funding in this bill, we will not be able to finish that. Needless to say, I was gravely disappointed when my amendment was not allowed on the floor for a fair debate today. That decision was a vote against the safety of Wyoming citizens and the rest of rural America. In fact, I believe rural America became the whipping post for the large populated areas. While the needs of first responders in high-population States such as California and New York are addressed in this bill, first responders in rural America are left with the scraps. Rural Americans are spread thin over a lot of land. We have 490,000 people in Wyoming spread over about 100,000 square miles. So one can imagine the difficulty of trying to protect resources and people spread over that area. Money to pay for first responders cannot be appropriated on a per capita basis, as has been suggested. Rural first responders are the brave individuals who protect our communities after an attack, and those men and women deserve the same respect and resources in Wyoming and rural America as they do in New York. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with frustration that I rise today to oppose H.J. Res. 107, to make continuing appropriations for Fiscal Year 2005, as it is currently drafted. I want to be clear--I am not opposing the need for, or principle of, this resolution. I, like any of my colleagues, do not believe our nation's federal agencies and numerous, federally-funded programs should suffer just because Congress has failed to reach agreements on 12 of the 13 appropriations measures. I do, however, take issue with one specific provision attached to the Continuing Resolution (CR) which extends, for the duration of the CR, fee collection authority under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. Commonly known as the Abandoned Mine Land or ``AML'' program, this fee collection authority was intended to expire at the end of this fiscal year, or tomorrow, Sept. 30, 2004. Layered in bureaucracy, the AML program is one badly in need of reform. Believing in the principle of the AML program, however, I have been working diligently with my colleagues from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, other members of the Resources Committee, Appropriators, Leadership in this body, and the Administration in the effort to provide that much needed reform before this program expired. Unfortunately, largely due to election year politics and an unwillingness to meet a reasonable compromise by some parties involved, comprehensive reform legislation still lags at the Committee level. As we continue to negotiate such a comprehensive fix, extending this broken program as the bill under consideration today will do, does not move us any closer to finding a solution that best addresses the needs of all parties involved. In addition to accumulating debts to other certified states and tribes, Wyoming alone is owed approximately $400 million, as authorized by SMCRA. Notwithstanding that fiscal obligation, Wyoming has never received what it is due. The AML extension language included in H.J. Res 107 only further exacerbates this failure to make good on the nation's responsibility to my home State of Wyoming. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would prefer not to oppose this resolution today. Unfortunately, the decision to include the AML extension language in H.J. Res 107, despite my continued and consistent opposition to such an action, provided me with no other option but a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today on behalf of the over 100,000 married couples in Wyoming in defense of traditional marriage. I do not judge those who have chosen a different life-style than I have chosen, but marriage is an institution cherished by the American people, as shown by the 44 States that have enacted laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This same institution is now under attack in our courtrooms, an assault we can defend only by passing the Marriage Protection Amendment. In the marriage debate, we have a case of political correctness going too far and costing too much. As we all work to be an inclusive society, we simply cannot forget the time-honored family values, the bedrock of our culture that have made America what it is today. These are the values that gave the early homesteaders in Wyoming the strength to brave the vast plains and the harsh winters. And these same values help today's families face newfound challenges in a modern society. Tradition gives our children roots, a base of strength from which to operate when facing politically correct pressures to abandon their values, whether it be God, their country, or, yes, even marriage. We know in our hearts what is right. We know logically and we know personally that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and we need to protect the traditional family structure. Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone's support in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, I urge my colleagues to join me and the citizens of Washington, D.C. to free them from a failed 27-year experiment with gun control policy. One thing that we all do know for sure is that criminals have guns, and criminals are the people that are being described by folks on the other side of the aisle in this case. Criminals have guns, but hardworking, honest, law-abiding citizens are not allowed to have guns in the District of Columbia to defend themselves. The statistics clearly show that the District's firearm restrictions have done nothing to combat crime, while crippling the right of every Washington, D.C. citizen to protect their homes and their families. I hail from a State that respects the fundamental, individual rights to own firearms granted to us by the second amendment of the Constitution; but in the District of Columbia, it is a world upside down. Law-abiding citizens are left defenseless to face criminals. They live behind locked doors, and they walk city streets with one eye on their children and their other eye on the lookout for armed criminals. I, and many more, realize that gun bans do not work against criminals, but they do endanger law-abiding citizens. This is no more evident than in this city which, in the past 2 decades, has become known as the murder capital of the United States. With that, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3193 and allow the people of Washington, D.C. the right they are guaranteed, and that is to defend themselves and their families.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4625) to reduce temporarily the royalty required to be paid for sodium produced on Federal lands, and for other purposes.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4625.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for his kindness in waiving the rule that establishes the ratio of suspension bills and allowing me to bring this bill up today, rather than having to wait until a later day. I also want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and his staff for all the courteous friendship and work that we have done on this bill. Mr. Speaker, plainly stated, H.R. 4625 would help balance the unfair playing field in the world market and allow the United States trona producers to face growing competition from countries like China. The United States soda ash industry, which until recently was the largest in the world, has operations in Wyoming, Colorado and California, with the bulk of the total production through four plants in the great State of Wyoming. The total estimated value of the industry is around $800 million. If you read the papers or watch the news, you know that current economic indicators show that the Nation's economy on the whole is gaining momentum, but the hard-working men and women of Wyoming in the soda ash industry continue to lose their jobs to countries like China. Seven hundred jobs have been lost in the Wyoming trona industry. The new, rosy economic numbers do not help these families put food on the table. They do not help them buy a new car or buy homes, and they do not help put their children through college. They do not help them sleep at night either. But this bill will provide reassurance for the 3,000 men and women who now work in the trona industry in Wyoming and the other States in the United States. The future of the soda ash industry is being threatened by a number of factors, including China's announced plans to increase existing soda ash plant capacity by 600,000 tons this year and to construct another new plant that will produce 900,000 tons when completed. It is distressing indeed to consider this level of production, when we know how the Chinese exploit cheap labor and almost completely disregard environmental standards. Furthermore, the domestic market for soda ash has been stagnant for nearly 20 years, and little growth is expected in the foreseeable future to meet the demand for glass or glass packaging. Add to all of this the rising energy costs, including a 150 percent increase in natural gas prices over the past 4 years, that have only made matters worse. The much-needed growth will have to be found in places like Asia and Australia, and that means we must take the Chinese head on and with every boost our government can give the soda ash industry. In order to allow all U.S. soda ash producers to compete on a level playing field with the likes of China, India and synthetic producers around the world and, in turn, create jobs here in the United States, we need to promote a lower tax burden on the industry, a reduced royalty rate and more affordable energy costs that are such a crucial part of the economic mix. The U.S. soda ash industry pays in the ballpark of $100 million in taxes to Federal, State, and local governments. Due to the growth of China's soda ash exports, it is essential that we provide temporary relief to the soda ash industry in the form of royalty rate reduction. This reduction is intended not to increase the bottom line on soda ash companies; it is intended entirely to grow the market and increase the number of jobs. H.R. 4625 reduces the royalty rate from 6 percent to 2 percent in order to help the industry achieve increased export growth and competitiveness in the emerging world market. The hard-working men and women in the soda ash industry have my commitment to continue working to help open new markets and create the good-paying jobs that will help our communities grow and to push for a real energy policy for the Nation that will help smooth out some of the volatility in the natural gas markets by increasing domestic production. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4625 is supported by the majority and the minority of the committee, and I urge adoption of this bill. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, July 19, 2004. Hon. Richard W. Pombo, Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4625, the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2004. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan Carroll. Sincerely, Elizabeth M. Robinson (For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director). Enclosure. H.R. 4625--Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2004 Summary: H.R. 4625 would provide royalty relief to producers of sodium compounds and related products on federal land. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4625 would increase direct spending by $3 million in 2005 and $15 million over the next five years (with no effect after 2009). Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. H.R. 4625 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The royalty reduction required by the bill would temporarily reduce federal payments to three states--Wyoming, Colorado, and California--by about $3 million a year over the 2005-2009 period. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 4625 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) for her work on this issue and for managing so many of the bills today. She certainly does a good job in the committee, and it is great working with her. Always having someone that we can have confidence in really helps move the process along. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Chairman, with all the misinformation that is floating around in this Chamber today, I hardly know where to start. But one place I will start is I would request that the Members on the other side who have supported and offered this amendment ask the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council to update the notes that they give them to speak on the floor because there is so much misinformation that is out there. And I will clarify some of that. It is amazing to me that the people who are offering and supporting this amendment I know for a fact have never attended the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee meetings that have been going on for several years. All the stakeholders are involved. The environmentalists are at the table as well as the Park Service and the other stakeholders. Were this a goodwill amendment, they would have more information than what they read in their radical environmentalist journals. While I understand that some folks do not approve of the management techniques used by the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, this amendment is truly misguided. By the way, to my colleague from Oregon, Wyoming does have a brucellosis problem, and Wyoming is not a brucellosis-free State anymore. That happened early this year because herds of cattle were commingling with elk. And so once again it would be really good if the gentleman could have current, accurate information before he delves into something that is so sensitive. It has been said, and it is entirely true, that the population of bison in the park is truly degrading the environment because there are too many. As I said, my State of Wyoming lost its brucellosis-free status earlier this spring due to the commingling of brucellosis- infected wildlife in Yellowstone in the ecosystem with domestic cattle herds this year. Some estimates indicate that this has cost the agricultural community in Wyoming $22 million already, and the year is only half over. I think a vote for this amendment will be a vote against those agricultural families. There is a delicate balancing act for all of the parties involved to address the needs of the environment, the federal and private stakeholders. Bison numbers are at capacity, and that is not an issue that is even up for debate. According to everyone, the bison has reached its total capacity in the Yellowstone ecosystem. We have to actively manage this herd so that we can preserve the ecosystem. To not do so would upset the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. This amendment would make the decade-long efforts of public and private stakeholders in vain by limiting the use of federal funds to aid in Park Service management efforts that result in the reduction of the bison herd. By taking one of the Park Service's tools out of their tool box in bison and brucellosis management, this amendment reduces our ability to effectively control the bison herd at a time when its numbers are at maximum capacity. I want the Members to know this amendment will not reduce the reduction of bison leaving Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. They will continue to leave. And what will happen is the surrounding States will take a more active role in reduction activities to protect their livestock industries with or without the aid of the Park Service. So if my colleagues do not like the way the animals are killed, that is one thing. But the fact is the numbers have to be reduced. This is nothing more than feel good legislation that ignores the facts, all the stakeholders' concerns, and the real world lack of a magic solution bullet to fix this problem. There simply is not one. This is bad policy. It is bad for the environment. It is bad for the American West. I do think it is ironic that these easterners, with the exception of my friend from Oregon, offer amendments about a very serious issue of which they have very little knowledge. I noticed the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) shaking his head no when the fact was brought forward that three bison were shot last year. That is the case. I ask my friends to vote against this amendment and suggest that the people who have made the amendment offer their advice to the Buffalo Bills. Maybe then they could beat the Denver Broncos.

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

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Chairman, actually I cannot answer that specifically for Grand Teton National Park, but I can say that the fact is there is evidence now that brucellosis was spread from elk to cattle. That is a fact, which my colleague said has never happened.

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

Mrs. CUBIN. That is correct.

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is such a huge subject. Once again, that wolf reintroduction program has not created the behaviors in the wolves that were expected at the time they were reintroduced. So this is too big a subject for us to go into right now. But my friend from Montana made the point perfectly well. You are making our point for us. They do not know where the boundary is, the bison do not and the wolves do not.

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

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, Yellowstone was established in 1872 with the dual purpose of protecting the unique resources in that area and providing for the American public to be able to enjoy that area. Both Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park have been well managed through the years to conserve the land and to provide for the public's use and enjoyment. No damage has ever been done to the parks by snowmobiling. I have to take exception with my friend from New Jersey's remarks that the EPA stated that the current snowmobiles are more polluting and noisier than the old because they are more powerful. After he told me that yesterday, I contacted the EPA. I have here with me the study that the EPA did. As a matter of fact, the current policy, the Bush policy, allows four-stroke engines to be in the park because their air emissions are 90 percent lower than the two stroke and the noise is 50 percent less than the two stroke. The Bush administration's policy is to allow four-stroke engines and limit the number of snowmobiles that can go into the park. I want to repeat: snowmobiles have never caused a violation of our current environmental laws, and the air quality will only improve under the Bush administration guidelines. As I said earlier, the new four- stroke engines are cleaner; and as my friend from Minnesota stated, they are quieter as well. By the way, snowmobiles can only go on the roads that are already plowed. I think people have the idea that snow machines are just going all over the park in all directions. That is not true. The only place they go are on the roads, as we see here, that are already plowed. The new supplemental environmental impact statement, which I just discussed which came to the conclusion that four-stroke engines could be used and to limit the number, grew out of countless hours of input from the National Park Service, from the Environmental Protection Agency, and from all the cooperating agencies and counties and other interest groups. This was a compromise between a ban and unlimited use. It strikes a good balance to provide for continued snowmobile use while still preserving the health of our national parks and the wildlife that live there. According to the Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources, a ban on snowmobiles in the parks could cost Wyoming 938 jobs and $11.8 million in lost labor income a year. That might not mean much to my friend from New Jersey, but it means a lot to us. To put it in perspective, these net job losses in Wyoming would be equivalent to 67,743 lost jobs in California; 37,952 lost jobs in New York; and 12,698 lost jobs in Massachusetts. That really does make a difference. If we ban snowmobiles, there will be two alternatives: no visitors in the winter, or snowcoaches as was said before. A snowcoach is a modified sport utility vehicle which gets from 2 to 4 miles per gallon. The emissions are much greater than the snowmobiles, even greater than the old two-stroke snowmobiles, and the noise is unbelievable. I know. I have seen them. I want my colleagues to look and see how much people interfacing with wildlife in Yellowstone National Park bothers the wildlife. Banning snowmobiles is the only way to stop this interfacing between animals and people, but obviously the animals are not upset about that and they are not upset by the snowmobiles coming around, either. Let us be honest in this debate, and let us not pretend that preventing the use of snowmobiles will enhance the environment in Yellowstone. It simply will not. As I said, no environmental law or limit has ever been broken or exceeded by the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone. Many of the radical environmentalists pushing for this ban would like to put all of the West into a national park. We have had a bill filed that actually does that from a Congressman from New York. I ask my colleagues to use their good sense. I ask them to allow the people of the United States of America to enjoy the resources and the God-given natural beauty that we have.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman to know that I completely agree with him that everybody who lives in the United States owns Yellowstone National Park. I totally agree with the gentleman on that. I do not think it belongs any more to Wyoming, Montana or Idaho than it does to the rest of the country. I will say when it comes time to taking care of Yellowstone and looking at the needs Yellowstone has, nobody does that but me. I would also say that because we live there, because we work there, we do know the issue; and our knowledge needs to be respected too.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for the time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 4513, the Renewable Energy Project Siting Improvement Act of 2004. This bill will greatly aid in our efforts to fill out our Nation's energy portfolio in a balanced way and in a complete manner. We hear so often that we do not have enough renewable energy sources contributing to America's insatiable appetite for cheap and abundant energy. Here is an opportunity to increase the role that renewables play in our energy production, helping to create a safer and smarter national energy policy. The problem that our Nation has with providing abundant and cheap energy to manufacturing plants, to agriculture users, to schools, to office buildings and to homes is not that we do not have enough energy. We have plenty. In my home State of Wyoming, we have several hundred years of supply of low sulfur coal, clean burning natural gas and easily attainable uranium, and the wind, well, it never stops blowing in Wyoming. So if we have plenty of energy, both fossil fuels and renewables, then what is the problem? It is simple. There are those who will stop at nothing to stop any development of any kind of our natural resources, no matter how responsibly it is done. There are those radical environmentalists that file so many lawsuits that it makes even an ambulance-chasing attorney blush. Through the death of a thousand cuts, these same environmentalists will drag out and attempt to halt any effort to provide energy that helps our economy grow, whether it be updating transmission lines, producing natural gas or coal with the newest of technologies or even putting up an environmentally sensitive wind farm. Just last year, I introduced H.R. 793, which was included in the conference report of H.R. 4 and in H.R. 4503, which the House will consider later today. This bill would address the need for statutory authority to permit future alternative energy projects on the outer continental shelf. Such projects would include energy projects such as wind, wave and solar power production. But that bill, too, was opposed by people all across the environmental community, and it was opposed particularly in Nantucket where a wind farm was already planned and financed several miles off the coast. These are the very same people who claim to be strongly supportive of alternative forms of energy, but refuse to allow even a single windmill many miles off their coast. This hypocrisy is simply unacceptable. The bill before us is an opportunity to support the expedited, but thorough, environmental of renewable energy projects. H.R. 4513 merely requires the Federal agency focus on the actual proposed renewable energy project rather than conjure up a whole bunch of fantasy alternative projects in the name of jumping through the procedural hurdles of NEPA. The alternative energy project, if found to be environmentally unacceptable, will still be rejected by the Federal agency involved. It is simple. Either Members are for renewable energy or they are not. It is time to move forward. The approach on alternatives in this bill was extensively debated during the consideration of the Healthy Forest legislation, and it is not a novel approach. It is consistent with NEPA. Reducing the number of alternatives in a NEPA study is a necessary step to reduce costly legislation that prevents capital investment in renewable energy projects. I strongly urge Members' support of H.R. 4513 and ask that those who claim to be in support of renewable energy sources put their vote where their mouth is and support a bill that actually allows renewable energy projects to get off the ground and out of the courthouses.