Barbara Cubin

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I have a solemn duty to inform the House of the investigation which I, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals, was assigned to lead. I am very saddened by the remarks of the previous speaker because he knows very well that is not what this case is about. I rise today to uphold this body's constitutional right to conduct lawful and thorough investigative oversight hearings on issues that are important to the American people. This is not something that we choose to do. This is something that we swear we will do when we raise our hand and take the oath that we will support the Constitution and the laws of this body. This issue actually stems from the filing of a False Claims Act lawsuit in a Federal courthouse in Texas by two whistleblowers who uncovered royalty underpayments by major oil companies to States, local governments, and to the Federal Government. The fact is these two whistleblowers are named Benjamin Johnson and John Martinek. These are the good guys. These are the private citizens who exposed the major oil companies' underpayment of royalties. They are responsible for getting an additional $400 million for Federal, State, and local governments, in other words for American citizens. Johnson and Martinek should be commended for their efforts in stopping this illegal practice. There is no question in anyone's mind that the oil companies should pay every single penny that they owe in royalties. That is in everyone's best interest. It is the law and it must be done. But the problem in this case is that the whistleblowers case was sealed in the Eastern District of Texas, and what that means is no details of the suit could be released outside the courthouse but the very existence of the suit could not be established either. The existence had to be kept secret. However, somebody leaked the details of that secret lawsuit to the Project on Government Oversight (POGO). That insider information allowed POGO to file a nearly identical lawsuit in the same court in Eastern Texas. Now, could that be a coincidence? No, when we consider there are 91 Federal courts in the United States. The Committee on Resources investigation focused on two Federal employees, Robert Speir and Robert Berman. Mr. Spear is with the Department of Energy. Mr. Berman is currently an employee with the Department of Interior. They are suspected of leaking the details of that lawsuit to POGO. Again, the whistleblowers are the ones who filed the original suit. Well, POGO had been lobbying looking for a lawsuit to file, and they also had been lobbying for changing oil valuation rules. These two employees' rewards for doing what they did, for releasing the information and for assisting in changing oil valuation rules, were rewarded $383,000 each already. They had a signed agreement that they would be awarded that amount of money and, if the agreement had been adhered to, they would have received another $4 million between them. Just a few days ago, the Committee obtained from the Department of Justice the smoking gun, which establishes that at the very time POGO and the two Federal employees were conducting this arrangement, that Robert Berman, the Interior employee, was actively engaged in drafting a new regulation dealing with the collection of oil royalties. These regulations were being sought by POGO. The regulations indirectly benefit POGO chairman and directly benefit his clients, who are in the business of collecting oil royalties. The key players in the investigation were issued subpoenas, as was stated by the chairman of the Committee on Resources, but they refused to answer questions. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources asked Danielle Brian Stockton, the executive director of POGO; Henry Banta, the chairman of the POGO board; and Bob Berman questions. Let me tell my colleagues the question that they were asked, direct questions about how POGO and the Federal employees learned about this sealed lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. This is a quote from the Record. Mr. Banta: ``I believe that issue is not pertinent to the inquiry of this Committee.'' Ms. Brian: ``I will not answer that question because of my pertinence.'' Mr. Berman stated another answer to another question: ``I will not answer this subcommittee's questions.'' In other words, these people were saying they would determine what were pertinent questions for them to be asked in our investigation. They were saying they would decide what questions could be asked and be made pertinent. Ask yourself, how well would the American people have been served if the tobacco company executives refused to answer the questions that they were asked? Ask yourself, will Firestone and Ford Motor Company executives have to answer questions put to them by committees when the committees are trying to protect the safety and the very lives of American people? The Constitution and the rules of the House of Representatives are clear on this point. The House must conduct oversight hearings, and the House and only the House is the judge of what answers they need to questions in a thorough oversight review. I have to remind you, we are not here today to vote on the guilt or the innocence of the three people who are cited in this resolution. That is up to the Department of Justice, which at this very time is conducting an investigation into all of the activities having to do with the payments and the proceeds of the lawsuit. Our job is to vote on the resolution to adopt this report, saying that the Speaker is authorized to present the facts of this report to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. The United States Attorney will then place the matter before a grand jury. The grand jury, not the House, will decide whether any or all of these parties will be found with contempt. The people cited in this report have defied this body's constitutional right to ask the why and the how about the largest payoffs ever accepted by Federal employees. The American people have a right to know. That is the nature of today's resolution. I hope that everyone will vote in support of the authority of the Congress of the House of Representatives.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I introduced H.R. 3850 to lessen the burdens on small and mid-size telephone companies and to allow them to shift more of their resources to deploying advanced telecommunications services to consumers in all areas of the country. Small and mid-size companies are truly that. While the more than 1,200 small and mid-size companies serve less than 10 percent of the Nation's lines, they cover a much larger percentage of rural markets and are located in or near most major markets in the country. Some of these telephone companies are mom and pop operations, typically serving rural areas of the country where most other carriers fear to tread, in high cost places where it is much less profitable than in more populated areas. In 1996, Congress passed historic legislation in the form of the Telecommunications Act. Section 706 of the act sent a clear message to the American people and to the Federal Communications Commission that the deployment of new telecommunications services in rural areas around the country must happen quickly and without delay. Unfortunately, the FCC has not made it any easier for small telephone companies to deploy advanced services in rural areas. In some cases, they have actually made it more difficult. The reason is that the FCC, more often than not, uses a one-size-fits-all model in regulating Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. This type of model may be fine for the big companies that have the ability to hire legions of attorneys and staff to interpret and ensure compliance with Federal rules. However, I for one would rather see the small and mid-size companies use their resources to deploy new services and make investment in their telecommunications infrastructure. Two examples of these burdensome FCC requirements are CAM and ARMIS reports. These reports separately cost about $500,000 to compile and would equate to a small telephone company installing a DSLAM or other facilities to provide high-speed Internet services to customers in rural areas. Just to give my colleagues an example of how burdensome these reports are, the commission's instructions for filing the reports are over 900 pages long. More often than not, the FCC, according to their own testimony, does not refer to these reports and, in some cases, simply ignores the data filed by the mid-size companies. Let me be very clear, because this is very important. The bill does nothing to restrict the commission's authority to request this or any other data that it sees fit. I want to be fair. The FCC should be commended for their efforts to bring some of these reporting requirements down to a reasonable level. They have made advances in their area. In fact, during our hearing on this legislation, the FCC told the Committee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection that it may be issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking on the reporting requirements for 2 percent companies sometime this fall. The problem, though, is that the agency's time frame on issuing these proposed rules has changed like the Wyoming winds. It is time that those obligations are met, and this legislation would solidify what the FCC has already promised to do for a long time. In addition, I want everyone to know that we have bent over backwards to accommodate many of the initial concerns that some Members had with this legislation and have incorporated a majority of their helpful suggestions. And for their suggestions, I am very grateful because I think that the legislation has been improved. Some of the changes that were adopted during the Committee on Commerce's consideration of the bill took into account several technical provisions that will continue to allow the FCC to do its job but in a way that still ensures that small and mid-size companies are treated differently than the huge companies. In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to state for the record what this legislation does and what it does not do. Number one, the bill does not re-open the 1996 act. It does not fully deregulate 2 percent carriers. It does not impact regulations dealing with large local carriers. It would, however, be the first freestanding legislation that would modernize regulations of 2 percent carriers. It would accelerate competition in many small to mid-size markets, accelerate the deployment of new advanced telecommunications services in rural areas, and benefit consumers by allowing 2 percent carriers to redirect their resources to network investment and to new services. Madam Speaker, this legislation is critical for rural areas across the country where these small telephone companies operate. Without this bill, these 2 percent companies will continue to be burdened with this one-size-fits-all regulatory approach that has kept them from providing rural areas with what they need most, and that is a piece of the new economy based on telecommunications. Madam Speaker, I want to thank very sincerely the members of the Committee on Commerce, the staff, and my own staff for their help in moving this bill. I ask my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3850) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote deployment of advanced services and foster the development of competition for the benefit of consumers in all regions of the Nation by relieving unnecessary burdens on the Nation's two percent local exchange telecommunications carriers, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3850, as amended.

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and just close by saying that I sincerely appreciate the efforts of the Committee on Commerce staff, both the majority and the minority, and the original cosponsors, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) for their work on this bill. Also, I wish to extend my thanks to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and his staff, who have been very cooperative and have helped us make changes to the legislation that make it better legislation. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 133) recognizing the severity of the disease of colon cancer, the preventable nature of the disease, and the need for education in the areas of prevention and early detection, and for other purposes.

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam 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 House Concurrent Resolution 133, now under consideration.

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such times as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 133, which recognizes the importance of preventing deaths from colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in the United States. About 56,500 people die from colorectal cancer each year in the United States. The chance of cure is clearly related to the stage of the disease. Early cancers have an excellent prognosis, while advanced cancers have a poor prognosis. Often, colorectal cancer does not give any symptoms until rather late in the disease. I have been touched personally by this disease, having lost a dear friend to the disease, when had it been diagnosed earlier, surely it would have been curable. By screening for colorectal cancer, cancers can be detected at a very early stage, when they are clearly curable. Several studies have shown that screening for colorectal cancer by checking for blood in the stools reduces death in these cancer patients by 15 to 30 percent. Screening for colorectal cancer is now recommended in the United States for all people over 50 years or older without any symptoms of colorectal disease and no other risk factors. Colorectal cancer screening is an area in which the House Committee on Commerce has been very active. Under changes made in 1997, the Medicare program authorized coverage of and established frequency limits for colorectal cancer screening tests. As a part of our work with the House leadership in coming up with a Medicare package we can all be proud of, the Committee on Commerce reported out provisions in H.R. 5291, the Beneficiary Improvement and Protection Act, that would give consumers more choices and control in the kind of colorectal cancer screening services they can choose. The provision would permit an individual to elect to receive a screening colonoscopy, which is more expensive but more thorough, instead of a screening sigmoidoscopy. There are many other fine provisions in H.R. 5291 that would go a long way to improving the life for those Americans on Medicare facing an uncertain future of colorectal cancer. Madam Speaker, I thank the cosponsors of House Concurrent Resolution 133 for their leadership on this issue and in cancer awareness in general, and I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution on the floor today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The subject that H. Con. Res. 133 addresses is not a pleasant issue to discuss, but something that is much, much, much less pleasant, which is horrible, in fact, is to be notified that someone you love has colorectal cancer and had they been diagnosed earlier, had they gone in earlier, it would have been curable but now it is not. I think generally men have a harder time dealing with issues like this, and so I would like to really express my thanks to the gentlemen here today who have brought this issue up and have spoken on behalf of it, because it is a disease that is curable in most cases. I truly thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for their leadership on behalf of men and women as well. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Wyoming's most prized possessions and most precious assets, former United States Senator and Wyoming Governor Clifford P. Hansen. Today I join my colleagues and the people of Wyoming to honor Cliff Hansen by designating the Jackson, Wyoming, Federal Courthouse in his name. Senator Hansen is a true Wyoming statesman. He has helped make our State special and our people proud of him and of our own heritage and who we are. Senator Hansen and his wife, Martha, recently celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary. With their children, their grandchildren, and even great grandchildren, the Hansen family is a colorful thread in the fabric that makes Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and the surrounding areas and Wyoming itself unique. Cliff Hansen lives in Jackson Hole at the foot of the famed Tetons. His achievements as both a United States Senator and a person are as majestic as those towering peaks. Our goal as fellow public servants should be to aspire to climb to the same personal heights that Senator Hansen achieved. Senator Hansen has been a respected figure of public service in Wyoming and the American landscape for more than 40 years. He began at the local school board, was elected a Teton County Commissioner, moved on to the State House in Cheyenne as Wyoming's 26th Governor, and finally came here to Washington as a distinguished Member of the United States Senate. Senator Hansen was so well regarded and his leadership so clear that President Ronald Reagan asked him to be Secretary of the Interior not once, but twice. With his experience and his expertise regarding our public lands and the environment, there is no doubt he would have done an excellent job had he accepted. He is quick to care, astutely understanding, and finds the best solutions to fit the need placed before him. Next to my own father, Senator Cliff Hansen is the man that I admire most. He and his loving wife, Martha, are wise, dear and trusted friends. Senator Cliff Hansen's remarkable accomplishments and distinguished record have made for an admirable career. Wyoming has enjoyed a rich history of outstanding leaders and strong individuals. These men and women have sought the best for our small towns with big expectations. They have exemplified what it means to be a community leader. Gracing the Federal Courthouse in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, with the great name of Clifford P. Hansen, considering that great legacy, is an appropriate symbol for what he and Wyoming stand for. I ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2641) to make technical corrections to title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, as amended.

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 to include extraneous material on this legislation.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2641 will make date extensions to title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which specifies how and when the Federal Government reimburses the private sector licensees for the Federal Government's share of the cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium milling sites. We have learned that it costs a lot more and takes a lot longer to clean up these mill sites than we originally anticipated back in 1992, due in large part to the difficulties of dealing with groundwater contamination. Therefore, H.R. 2641 makes some adjustments to the time line of the current reimbursement scheme to recognize these realities and to make sure that the government continues to pay its fair share of the cleanup costs. The current scheme of reimbursement on an annual basis is due to end in 2002, with DOE required to place into escrow sufficient funds to cover the estimated post-2002 costs. Both industry and the Department of Energy want to continue the current arrangement of reimbursement of actual costs on an annual basis for several more years until all or almost all of this cleanup work is completed. This bill was changed significantly as it moved through the committee process. I commend the Members and staff on both sides of the aisle, particularly the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), for working to improve this bill. What is before the House today was reported out of the Committee on Commerce with unanimous bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2641 represents an effective compromise measure that has the full support of the Department of Energy and the industry. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again I want to thank the staffs on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), his cooperation and good temperament is always a joy to work with and I thank him very much.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, S. 1374, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 2577 which I introduced to establish a multiagency campus in Jackson, Wyoming, is widely supported by the Clinton administration and by the people of Jackson Hole, Wyoming. The bill provides for a newly established campus which will afford much-needed office space for the town of Jackson, the Bridger-Teton National Forest employees, the National Elk Refuge employees, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, the Jackson Chamber of Commerce, and other State and local entities. The multiagency campus will provide one-stop shopping, if you will, for those who want to visit Federal, State, and local land and wildlife management agencies, as well as to allow visitors to utilize a number of resources in one central location. Specifically, the legislation before us today provides a land-for- land exchange between the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the U.S. Forest Service, a land-for-building exchange between the United States Forest Service and the town of Jackson, which will provide the land for the Chamber of Commerce and historical society museum, as well as for additional parking spaces for the entire campus. Due to the fact that there are a number of Federal, State, and local government agencies involved, straight land exchanges cannot take place interagency. What that means is that Federal legislation must be introduced to make this project a reality. Additionally, in the interest of time, I have agreed to move the Senate bill instead of the bill which I introduced so that construction could take place sooner rather than later. The hard work and the diligence of the people in Jackson who have made this project possible should be commended. A project like this is not easy. It is a private-public partnership. But I am pleased that I have been able to give some assistance in making it a reality. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the this opportunity.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, this is a good day. This is a good day for Americans because we are moving one day closer to eliminating the marriage tax penalty. It is a good day for working women. I am a working woman. Many working women have a large portion of their salaries eaten up by this unfair tax that is placed upon them only because they are married. Garth Brooks is one of my favorite entertainers of all time. The reason I started liking him was because he sings a song called ``Shameless.'' I cannot help but think of Garth Brooks when I am sitting here listening to this debate today, because it seem to me that the speakers on the other side are shameless. One on the other side said, ``We should not be passing this tax cut because we should be reducing the debt.'' The others are not quite so shameless because they say, ``We should not be passing this tax cut. We know better how to spend your money, so let us spend the money. We will spend it on other programs.'' The truth is, if there is money in Washington, it will be spent. So our choice is not whether or not we pay down the debt or cut taxes. After the President vetoed the $792 billion tax package last year that we passed, within 48 hours every single penny of that was spent. So let us get honest, it is not between paying the debt and tax cuts, it is between giving people's money back to them, and it is their money, they know how to spend it best, or our arrogance, saying we know how to spend their money for them better than they do. Over the past several weeks I have had the pleasure of attending weddings in my hometown of Casper, Wyoming. In both cases, as in the case with almost every young married couple these days, both the bride and the groom were starting bright futures in our Nation's work force. It is very satisfying to me to know that, along with my colleagues in the 106th Congress, I would have the opportunity to ensure that these young, ambitious, and hard-working couples would not have to shoulder an additional tax burden just because they took the marriage vows. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the 45,000 married couples in my home State of Wyoming, or the 25 million married couples across the United States that are currently subjected to that tax every year. Marriage is a sacred institution, it is not a taxable institution. Today we will have the opportunity to vote on a measure that will level the playing field for hard-working husbands and wives. This legislation also includes specific provisions to assist our Nation's lowest income families. Washington should not be in the business of penalizing families but in providing them with more freedom, more choice, and more opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute and for the bill.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, driving is not a luxury to most Americans, it is a necessity, especially in the mountain West where I live where one might have to drive 100 miles to go see the doctor. Americans need their cars, and they need their cars to get to work, to school, to church, and to the grocery store. Truckers need their rigs to deliver food, clothing, and other goods across the Nation. When gas prices get out of hand, it is more than just inconvenient, it is a considerable financial problem. Truckers across the country are having their livelihoods threatened because they cannot afford the price of fuel. Families are curbing their long- anticipated summer vacation plans. This is simply wrong. The gas prices that plague our Nation represent a complete failure of the energy policy or lack of energy policy, I should say, of the Clinton-Gore administration. It is time for Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore to wake up. America needs an energy policy that will protect America's interests, help our families and our national security.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for yielding me this time, and I also wish to thank him in his capacity as the chairman of the Committee on House Administration for moving this important piece of legislation forward in such a timely manner, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). It is very important to the people of Wyoming. I am proud to bring before the House today this resolution to provide for the placement of a statue of Chief Washakie in Statuary Hall presented by the people of the State of Wyoming. In 1840, Chief Washakie became the principal chief of the eastern Shoshone tribe, a role he would fill until his death over 60 years later. Chief Washakie was well-known as a distinguished leader and a stately warrior who bravely defended the Shoshone and their allies. He was a skilled linguist. He spoke English, French and Shoshone. Adhering to the philosophy of making the best of what cannot be changed, Chief Washakie maintained friendly relations with the United States Government, with the settlers, and other American immigrants. He always placed the peace and welfare of his people above all other concerns. Chief Washakie worked tirelessly to seek the best for his people, requesting schools, churches, and hospitals on Shoshone land. He peacefully surrendered the Green River Valley to provide for the right-of-way for the Union Pacific railroad, thus helping complete the first transcontinental railroad and the settlement of the west. As the last Chief of the Shoshone tribe, Chief Washakie successfully preserved the Wind River Mountain Range for his tribe's homeland. The Wind River Mountains are truly some of the most magnificent mountains in the world. Anyone who has not seen them needs to take a trip and look at the vast beauty. In the role of chief, Chief Washakie greatly contributed to the settlement of the West by allowing the Oregon and the Mormon trails to pass through Shoshone lands. When wagon trains carrying these pioneers passed through the Shoshone territory in the 1850s, Chief Washakie and his people aided overland travelers in fording the streams and recovering stray animals. I think that it is interesting to note that over 9,000 emigrants signed a thank-you document to Chief Washakie and his people for safe passage through their territory. In the 1870s, Chief Washakie served as a military leader of over 150 Shoshone men who were serving with United States Cavalry General Crook in the campaign to return the Sioux and the Cheyenne bands to their assigned reservations. This campaign ended with Custer's ill-fated attack at the Little Big Horn in 1876. This was an attack which Chief Washakie seriously advised Colonel Custer against doing. My own maternal great, great grandfather migrated to Wyoming around 1846. He was a mountain man and a trapper. He traded fur pelts with the Indians, and surely the Shoshones were among those with whom he traded. When Chief Washakie died in 1900, some say over the age of 100, Chief Washakie received a full military funeral and burial honoring his career in the U.S. Army. He is the only chief who has ever been awarded such a distinction. The Wind River Indian Reservation in central Wyoming is the home of many Shoshone and Arapaho Indians today. Their culture and their art work are still being passed to young generations. For this legacy, we should all be grateful. On behalf of the people of Wyoming, I am proud to put forth this legislation providing a commemoration of one of the States' most celebrated names, Chief Washakie.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support today of the Hostettler amendments, both this one and the one that we debated earlier. I want to just stop for a minute and take a look at our country. Every single day, there are men and women in our country that get up, most of the time they are in uniform, fire fighters, police officers, men and women in the military, and they get up, they button their uniform on; and when they do that, they are saying to us, today I will die if I need to to protect your freedom. Well, we owe those people something. If the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition gets everything that they want, then what they are doing is they are taking the maximum security that those people could have away from them. We would never in this body attempt to regulate the kind of ropes that fire fighters might be able to use while they do their job to try to save their life. We would never ask for lower quality guns and ammunition or tanks for our military people just because it was the political action of the day or the political discussion of the day. So why should we, why should we take the right of chiefs of police in local communities away from them to get the equipment that they think gives their force the greatest possibility of survival, God forbid they should come into a situation where they needed to use that equipment, where they needed to use those weapons. That is unthinkable. And that is really what the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition is about. It is about diminishing the safety of those people who say they will die for us if they have to do that. It is not about saving lives. Let me talk about the other issue, of whether or not we should be spending Federal funds to implement and enforce the agreement with Smith & Wesson. As my colleagues know, I represent the great State of Wyoming. I am a gun owner. I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon in the State of Wyoming, and I do. I am trained in the use of this gun. I am trained in the use of rifles. My husband and I together trained our children. We took them hunting. We took them target practicing. We taught them to respect what a gun is and to respect the way to handle it. And we also taught them to respect the law and that if they did not respect the law and obey the law, there would be consequences to pay. Well, what this administration needs to do with their time and with their money is to enforce the laws that we have and make sure that people who break the law using guns suffer the consequences. President Clinton brags that about 540,000 felons who tried to purchase weapons illegally were prevented from doing so under the Brady bill. Do my colleagues know how many of those people were prosecuted? Fewer than 200. I would say that if the President really wants to stop death and violence, that he should see to it that we start punishing criminals, locking them up, and letting law-abiding citizens own their guns, be responsible, and protect themselves. In Australia, just lately, not too long ago, the government took the guns away from all the citizens. The crime rate skyrocketed because only the criminals have guns. I want to have a gun, to be able to defend myself or defend my family. But most of all I want to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I want to defend not just the second amendment but all of them, and I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the Hostettler amendment so that we can do that.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I am the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Minerals Management Service. MMS is the agency charged with collecting royalties from mineral lessees of the federal government. Usually, the producer pays one- eighth of the value of the oil and natural gas from the wells on the lease to MMS to satisfy their royalty obligation, but the Secretary of the Interior is able to take royalty production in kind rather than in value, if he so chooses. MMS has been conducting ``R-I-K pilot programs'' over the last several years, first for oil from leases in Wyoming and later for natural gas off the coast of Texas. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the MMS has reported to me that royalty natural gas taken in-kind from the Gulf of Mexico has been sold to the General Services Administration for heating federal buildings, including this very Capitol building last winter. MMS is seeking to expand the scope of its natural gas R-I-K program to learn how best to add value for the taxpayer by aggregating significant volumes of gas from many leases throughout the Gulf and marketing those volumes to the highest bidders. This is known as ``market uplift'' and it is a source of added value for the government. Why? Because when lessees pay their royalty in value it is based upon the wellhead value of the oil or gas, not the greater value one can receive from transporting product and aggressively marketing one's crude oil or natural gas downstream of the lease. Just two months ago a federal court ruled that there is no duty for oil and gas lessees to market their production without cost to the government. To my knowledge the federal government has not appealed this summary judgment. Mr. Chairman, this simply means the producer of oil and gas owes royalty on the value of production at the lease. If the oil or gas is first sold downstream of the lease, then transportation, processing (if necessary) and marketing costs are deducted from the proceeds when calculating the royalty owed. Likewise, if and when the MMS takes its royalty in kind at a point downstream of the lease, a similar deduction is owed the producer. This bill, as reported by the Committee on Appropriations, recognized this requirement, as does Mrs. Maloney' amendment. Thus, I shall not object to the gentlelady's amendment even though it will hinder the MMS in its efforts to explore adding value for the taxpayer. This is because the Maloney amendment strikes language allowing the MMS to contract with outside marketers who are skilled in aggregating volumes of natural gas and finding the best price for it. Yes, MMS will be able to do this work ``in house'' with its own personnel, but MMS itself recognizes that its employees lack the trading skills learned in the competitive marketplace. We cannot expect them to match the ``uplift'' private marketers would bring to the government's natural gas supply. Mr. Chairman, the provision which follows the Maloney amendment in the text of this bill insures the taxpayers will not lose money in the conduct of the R-I-K pilots, but the shame here is that the opportunity to add further value for the taxpayer is unduly constrained by this amendment.