Barbara Cubin

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 509 and H.R. 510, as introduced in the House, mirror the bills introduced by Senators Mike Enzi and Craig Thomas that passed last year in the Senate by unanimous consent. The first bill, H.R. 509, transfers eighty acres of public land in Big Horn County, Wyoming, to the estate of Mr. Fred Steffens. The property outlined in the bill has been a part of the Steffens' family working farm since the land was purchased in 1928. Mr. Steffens was issued a warranty deed to the property by Mr. Frank McKinney, predecessor of interest. Unfortunately, Mr. McKinney knowingly had neither title to the property nor an assignable right of entry. However, the fact that Mr. McKinney did not own the land did not stop him from selling the property or issuing the warranty deed. In good faith, Mr. Steffens purchased the property and, according to the Big Horn County Assessor's office, paid taxes since the date of purchase in 1928. Upon Mr. Steffens' death, in an attempt to settle his estate, it was discovered that a patent had never been issued for these lands. Mr. Steffens' sister and representative of the estate filed a Color of Title application with the BLM's Wyoming state office, but the title was rejected. The reason given was that the lands at issue were, and continue to be, withdrawn by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for the Shoshone Reclamation Project. Regulations specifically preclude claims under the Color of Title Act when lands are withdrawn for Federal purposes. The only option to remedy this situation is to pass H.R. 509. Both the BOR and the BLM support the transfer of title to the Steffens' estate. The bill preserves the rights of the federal government to own the mineral interests and transfers the right, title and surface estate to the Steffens. Mr. Steffens' and his family occupied this property in good faith. I believe it's time for the issue to be resolved and ask my colleagues to favorably report the bill to the House floor. H.R. 510 is another bill that the BLM supports which transfers forty acres of public land in Big Horn County, Wyoming, to John and Margaret Lowe. Although there is a confusing history to this particular parcel, there is abundant evidence that the Lowe's claim to the land is justified. The latest evidence comes at the hand of a Big Horn County assessor who wrote that based on other entries in the county records, the legal description of the land being transferred by the original patent should have included the forty acres under consideration. The Lowe family, since acquiring the land in 1966, have paid taxes on the land since that time. H.R. 510, although not the only alternative the Lowe's have in acquiring the forty acres, is the only alternative that will bring minimal additional expense to either the Lowe family or the BLM. As I mentioned before, the BLM supports the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, as a Member who represents what is I consider the most rural district in the entire Congress, which is the whole State of Wyoming, I rise in support of H.R. 1554. I do appreciate that the chairmen of the committees have made concessions on this rural issue. But there are, however, two measures that I think need to be addressed to make sure that adequate service is available to rural satellite viewers. First of all, I believe that until the FCC adopts a comprehensive solution or replaces or modifies the 1950 standard for determining whether a household can receive an acceptable over-the-air picture, both DBS and C-band subscribers should be allowed to continue to receive distant network broadcast signals in lieu of the local signal. The second issue that I am particularly interested in has to do with providing local-to-local service to rural America. Giving the satellite industry the right to retransmit local network signals into local areas will provide competition to cable systems and drive costs down for both cable and satellite service. A significant number of constituents that I have do not have the choice between satellite and cable because the distances between homes and urban centers are not possible for cable. So what I would like us to do is look very strongly into ensuring that we give satellite companies incentives rather than Federal mandates for providing local-to-local service.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on Earth Day, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the National Geologic Mapping Act, a cooperative program between the states and the federal government to prioritize efforts to delineate the bedrock and surficial geology of the country on a broad scale, sufficient for land-use planning, natural hazards abatement and mitigation, and mineral resource endowment estimates. This bill's antecedents are the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992, and its reauthorization and amendment in 1997. Mr. Speaker, my home state of Wyoming is rich in geologic wonders, thus I am well aware of the importance of having accurate geologic information in order to manage and appreciate the land around us. Geologic information in the form of maps, both as traditional hard copies as well as digital data for manipulation by computer, aid society in prudent land-use planning, waste disposal, mitigation of geologic hazards, and management of natural resources. Funding for the program is incorporated in the budget of the U.S. Geological Survey as a subset of its annual appropriation. The main components of this bill remain the same as its precursors-- with a State geologic mapping component, whose objectives are to determine the geologic framework of areas that the State geological surveys determine to be vital to the economic, social, or scientific welfare of individual States. Mapping priorities will be determined by multi-representational State panels, and shall be integrated with national priorities. Federal funding for the State components shall be matched on a one-to-one basis with non-Federal funds. An educational component of the act is designed to train the next generation of geologic mappers--by providing for broad education in geologic mapping and field analysis through support of field studies; and to develop the academic programs that teach earth-science students the fundamental principles of geologic mapping and field analysis, and knowledge of the solid earth. These mapping investigations will be integrated into the other State geologic mapping components of the program. The reauthorization of the National Geologic Mapping Act shines as a sterling example of a cooperative partnership between the Federal government and the individual states for the benefit of society. Mr. Speaker, geologists like to say that for them ``every day is Earth Day.'' What better day than today to introduce the bill to keep the benefits of this important cooperative program flowing?

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a Concurrent Resolution to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries will continue to have access to the types of medical care they need. Regrettably, the Medicare+Choice regulations do not ensure that Medicare beneficiaries participating in the Medicare+Choice Program receive coverage for chiropractic services like they do under traditional Medicare. Medicare beneficiaries have access to chiropractic services through Medicare Part B. When the Medicare+Choice Program was created, Congress stated its intention that all services covered under Medicare Parts A and B would be included in the program. It is unfortunate that the such services might not be available under the new program. The Medicare+Choice program allows Medicare beneficiaries to participate in a managed care system. For many people, such a system will better meet their needs. It was also the intention of Congress, while expanding health care choices, to find cost-effective means of providing care. I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in rectifying this problem by supporting this bill.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, the President has talked about saving Social Security many times since his State of the Union last month. We Republicans stand ready to work with him on this issue. Although his proposal does contain a number of serious flaws, such as double counting over $2 trillion and a foolish idea about how Uncle Sam should be the biggest investor in the stock market, we believe that there does exist some common ground on which both Republicans and Democrats can agree. But now is the time for the President to produce a legislative proposal, to move from rhetoric and concepts and ideas into actual legislation something that we can act on, something that will be set on the table so that we have a base on which to place our actions. His proposal in vague, broad terms needs to be introduced into this body in detail. We share a common goal of strengthening Social Security, preserving the safety net, and giving younger workers more freedom to provide for their retirement needs. So let us get to work. Republicans are standing by waiting for the President's proposal.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the outstanding service and dedication to this country by one of Wyoming's native sons. Colonel James W. Kelley, Jr., originally from Sheridan, Wyoming, is retiring from the United States Air Force this month after 30 years of service. Colonel Kelley has received numerous awards during his successful career in the Air Force. Although all of the awards are impressive, I am most impressed by such things as the Meritorious Service Medal for being directly involved in five serious Pararescue helicopter missions that were credited with savings six lives. Through his work in health and rescue, it is impossible to know how many people are alive today because of Colonel Kelley's bravery and dedication. An even greater number were afforded vital assistance and comfort in times of need. I salute Colonel Kelley for his years of service to this country. Although we have come to expect people of high caliber and dedication in our Armed Forces, Colonel Kelley will be missed by the Air Force after his retirement. As an American, I am proud of Colonel Kelley's service. Coming from Wyoming, I am proud that one of our native sons has made such a vital contribution to the defense of this great country. I'm sure I speak for every citizen of Wyoming in thanking Colonel Kelley for his years of service, and in wishing him every success in his endeavors when he retires from the Air Force.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, one hundred and seventy-nine years ago, on February 15, a remarkable woman was born. Her passion for establishing equal rights for women led her to champion the rights of others dispossessed as well. That woman is Susan B. Anthony. Today she is mainly, and rightly, remembered as one of our greatest foremothers in the drive for women's rights. And this drive for women's rights led her to champion the rights of others as well. Anthony was a fierce opponent of slavery. And she also championed the rights of those who today have become the most dispossessed of all: the unborn. Although she herself was childless, she considered amongst her greatest achievements, to have saved the lives of the unborn. She said, ``. . . Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so that their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them.'' Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we take the anniversary of her birth as an opportunity to remember this great woman, Susan B. Anthony, and to rededicate ourselves to her life's work of guaranteeing full rights for both women and their unborn children.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to ensure that the name of Devils Tower National Monument remain unchanged. I introduced this bill during the 104th Congress, the 105th Congress, and rise now to introduce the same bill at the beginning of the 106th Congress. Since the time that this bill was first introduced, I have received numerous positive comments and support from constituents from around the Devils Tower area. In fact, my office has received a petition with an estimated 2,000 names from not only those in and around the Monument, but from all over the country of those concerned with changing the name of this beloved landmark. For more than 100 years the name ``Devils Tower'' has applied to the geologic formation in my state and has since appeared as such on maps in Wyoming and nationwide. The name was given to the Monument by a scientific team, directed by General George Custer and escorted by Col. Richard Dodge in 1875, and is universally recognized as an important landmark that distinguishes the northeastern part of Wyoming. The Monument has brought a vital tourist industry to that portion of the state due to its unique character and structure. According to a recent memo, released by the United States Board on Geographic Names, the National Park Service has advised the board that several Native American groups intend to submit a proposal, if one has not already been submitted, to change the name of the Monument. On September 4-6, 1996, former Superintendent of Devils Tower, Deborah Liggett, gave a presentation at the Western States Geographic Names Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, giving the Native American perspective. The legislation that I am introducing today on behalf of the state of Wyoming will ensure that the name of the geological formation, historically known as Devils Tower, remain unchanged. It is my belief and the belief of hundreds of people from around the region that a name change will only bring economic hardship to the tourist industry in the area. I cannot and will not stand idly by and allow that to happen. I commend this bill to my colleagues and ask for their support.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, after weeks of soul-searching, hearing from the people of Wyoming, and a thorough review of the evidence, I have reached a painful decision which I realize will severely impact our country and bring humiliation to another human being. At this crucial time, however, we have to put the good of the Republic, the integrity of the Constitution, and the rule of law above all else to protect the future of the United States America. For this reason, I will vote to impeach the President. This is an awesome responsibility that none of us take lightly, certainly not me. Perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power undermine the basis of our judicial system, our system of laws, thereby undermining the very foundation of this great country. I recognize the profound effect my vote will have on the future of our democracy and most importantly, the effect and impact it will have on the future of our children. It may well be the most important vote I ever cast during my years of public service. I want you to know I have prayed for guidance every day. After examining all the material, watching the hearings, listening to the testimony and to the President, and making myself familiar with all the information I can, I have come to the sad conclusion that I must vote for all four proposed articles of impeachment against the President of the United States. In my view, there is no doubt the President's actions warrant impeachment and a subsequent trial in the Senate. None of us are perfect, and we can all be forgiven for what we do in life. However, forgiveness does not negate the fact that every action we take in life has consequences. President Clinton is not just our head of state. He is the most powerful public servant in the country, probably the world. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of our land. The American people are right to hold him to this high standard, and the Congress is right to uphold the Constitution when the President fails to do so. I implore the President to resign in order to spare the country and the people of America the painful and embarrassing experience of going through further impeachment proceedings. If he does not resign, I have the solemn duty to vote to impeach William Jefferson Clinton.

Mrs. CUBIN

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

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is with sadness that I bring this to the floor of the House today, Mr. Speaker. In the wake of the tragic death of Matthew Shepard, my husband Fritz and I, along with our sons, Bill and Eric, who knew Matthew, join the people of Wyoming in offering our most heartfelt sympathy to Matthew's parents, his family, and his friends. Our thoughts and prayers are with all of them. There is no greater loss than that of a son or a daughter. However, we can take solace in knowing that Matthew's kind and gentle spirit will be a legacy that stays with those who were fortunate enough to know him. The resolution the House is considering today condemns in the strongest possible way the brutal killing of Matthew Shepard. No attack of this kind can ever be forgotten. No attack of this kind can ever be excused and no attack of this kind can ever go unpunished. It is my hope, and the hope of the caring people of Wyoming and the people throughout our country, that swift and judicious punishment will fall upon those who committed this heinous act. Our country must come together to condemn these types of brutal, nonsensical acts of violence. We cannot lie down. We cannot bury our heads. And we cannot sit on our hands. Though our actions, we must be deliberative and our actions must also at the very same time send a strong and ardent message to those who are intolerant of others. We will not stand for the arbitrary killing of others due to any hateful act of intolerance. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be joined today in offering this resolution by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we should not turn Matthew into a martyr, and his family has asked that we do not turn Matthew into a martyr. He would not want that and his family does not want that. Out of respect for Matthew, this resolution is not about advancing legislation. It is about advancing our tolerance in others, regardless of their gender, race, or sexual orientation. At the end of his life, the defining element of Matthew's life should not be his sexuality. It should be the kind, gentle, intelligent, wonderful person that Matthew was. That is how Matthew should be remembered. That is what his family wants, and that certainly is what I wish for them today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs).

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, every crime that is committed is a hateful crime. Brutalizing another person is a reprehensible act regardless of the motivation of the criminal or the affiliation of the victim. If convicted of first-degree murder in Wyoming, the suspects could be sentenced to death. Hate crime laws are enacted to enhance punishment. No sentence could be stronger, even if hate crimes legislation was enacted. The crime committed against Matthew Shepard is not only a crime against Matthew Shepard, but it is a crime against the dignity of all humanity. It is a crime against all of us. This cannot and will not be tolerated. This is not a time to divide our country over the differences that we have over certain legislation. Matthew's family has asked that that not happen. This is a time to unite in our common goal of ridding our country of intolerance, bigotry and prejudice and to offer comfort to Matthew's family and friends. Matthew left this world as an example to each one of us. He would want us to work against violence and hatred and toward peace and tolerance. There will be a memorial service for Matthew Shepard held in Laramie, Wyoming, tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2500) to protect the sanctity of contracts and leases entered into by surface patent holders with respect to coalbed methane gas.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2500 which, as passed by the other body, is identical to my bill, H.R. 4598. This bill is a bipartisan response to the vexing question of the rightful ownership of methane gas which resides in the voids of coal seams; in other words, their coal will be so many feet deep, and then there will be space where methane gas exists, and beneath that will be another seam of coal. S. 2500 takes the position that where the United States has patented the surface estate together with all minerals except coal under the authority of either the 1909 or 1910 Coal Lands Act that the methane molecules belong to the patentee or his successor or interest. The bill excludes all interests where the United States has transferred its reserved coal interest to the third parties such as the Southern Ute Tribe in southwest Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this bill is necessary because of a recent Tenth Circuit Court decision concerning the aforementioned tribe and an oil company producing coalbed methane from the private lands within the Southern Utes' reservation. Again though, this bill has no effect whatsoever upon that court case for which we expect the United States Supreme Court will grant a writ of certiorari and decide the ownership question for those situations where the U.S. has granted its reserve coal rights to third parties. In the meantime, however, S. 2500 will allow patentholders to be secure in the knowledge that whatever leases or contracts that they have already entered into with coalbed methane producers are valid. Without such relief, these landowners would be left in a legal conundrum not of their own making. A Solicitor's opinion issued in 1981 appeared to settle the ownership question. My constituents in the Powder River basin and others in the West where most coal seams are federally owned relied upon the Solicitor's analysis to assert their claims of coalbed methane ownership before leasing their rights to this gas. Mr. Speaker, I have a college degree in chemistry, and I am here to tell my colleagues that an atom of carbon that is bound to four hydrogen atoms is methane, it is a methane molecule pure and simple, and in my view and in the view of many other people the genesis of that molecule is unimportant when it comes to mineral ownership questions. What counts is who has the right to develop oil and gas resources within a particular tract of land, and without the common sense certainty of S. 2500 we have gridlock in the Powder River Basin coalbed methane business and in other places, too, such as the San Juan Basin of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, natural gas, which is composed primarily of methane, is thought by many to be the fuel of the future. It is a very clean burning fuel. As a matter of fact, the competition between burning coal and clean coal and burning methane goes on within industry all the time. But methane certainly is a good fuel and a promising fuel to use. With S. 2500 enacted into law, our Nation's supply of natural gas from available domestic sources will be enhanced. This can only be good for the country, and I urge my colleagues to support 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, I would like to let the body know for certain that I would never match my degree in chemistry against the gentleman from California's Ph.D. in humor.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1467) to provide for the continuance of oil and gas operations pursuant to certain existing leases in the Wayne National Forest, as amended.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill by our colleague from southern Ohio (Mr. Ney) which addresses a problem encountered by small businessmen operating Federal oil and gas leases on the Wayne National Forest. The situation these folks find themselves in is rather unique. These lessees formerly held private oil leases from individuals owning the reserve mineral estate beneath the Forest Service administered surface estate. A few years ago the private reservations began to expire, and the United States is now the mineral owner. Our colleague from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) in 1992 added a provision to the 1992 Energy Policy Act to allow a private lessee to acquire a Federal lease for the same tract on the Wayne National Forest without need of competitive bidding. Mr. Speaker, this was only fair given these small businessmen already owned the wells and the equipment that was necessary to pump and store the production. However, these operators soon discovered that ownership of a Federal lease meant having to financially guarantee proper abandonment of their lessees, plugging the wells properly and reclaiming the surface impacts. This was despite the fact that they had long ago met the State of Ohio's bonding requirements back when they drilled the private wells. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) sought to remedy this situation with his original bill but the Department of Interior, as lessor of the mineral rights, opposed that text. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, I asked the Federal agency and the State of Ohio's Department of Natural Resources to try to find an acceptable remedy. Mr. Speaker, the substitute before us today is the answer and is supported by the administration and by the Ohio DNR. The substitute codifies a recognition by the Secretary of Interior as to the adequacy of Ohio State's Orphan Well Fund to provide financial guarantees for the proper plugging and abandonment of preexisting wells on these special leases and these leases only. No precedent is being established elsewhere, although I do happen to think that many States' oil and gas commissions do a fine job in regulating the industry within their borders, and especially my State of Wyoming. The substitute provides opportunity for the Secretary to review the continuing adequacy of the Ohio law to ensure reclamation in the unlikely event of multiple bankruptcies. The Secretary may require the lessees to meet the Federal standard bonding requirements for these wells if the State of Ohio fails to fund the program at 20 percent of the State's severance tax levels that it currently has. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), for his willingness to aid these small businesses in the Wayne National Forest. They are not his constituents, per se, but he saw their plight and decided to help them nonetheless. I also want to thank the ranking member on our subcommittee, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), and his staffer, who helped the administration see the need to find a reasonable solution to the problem of double bonding. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1467, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3972) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from charging State and local government agencies for certain uses of the sand, gravel, and shell resources of the Outer Continental Shelf.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett). H.R. 3972 is a reasonable response to efforts by the Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior to charge State and local governments for the use of sand dredged from the Outer Continental Shelf for beach nourishment projects. Our colleague, the gentleman from Corpus Christi, Texas (Mr. Ortiz) led a successful effort in 1994 to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 to allow the Secretary of Interior to dispose of sand, gravel and shell resources beneath the Federal waters. Depletion of sand resources beneath closer in State waters prompted the amendment, and the National Park Service obtained sand necessary to replenish the Padre Island National Seashore at no cost. Mr. Speaker, it is evident that several coastal State and local governments will need sand from the Federal OCS for beach replenishment projects on their shorelines, particularly given the nor'easter storms and hurricanes that have racked the Gulf coast and many Atlantic beaches this year, but the MMS insists upon charging non-Federal government entities for such sand, whether it is a public project or not. Yes, under the current rules the fee is reduced for governmental projects but it is not free, as it is to Federal agencies, and, yes, the fee for the sand is generally only a small fraction of the total cost of such projects. In the case which prompted the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett) to act, I believe it was about two and a half percent, but that still added up to over $200,000, which is a burden on the citizens of Virginia Beach. We should all understand that the sand dredged from the Outer Continental Shelf is only on loan because as the storms come it goes right back out there. So we could call this a good recycling program if we wanted to do that as well. In many cases, within a decade or two, the sand used in beach nourishment really is returned by mother nature. Now it is my turn to have a bachelor of science in humor. In many cases, within a decade or two, the sand used in beach nourishment is returned by mother nature to offshore shoals. Mr. Speaker, as a Member from Wyoming, I do not think I need to remind anyone that we do not have any beaches but that sand and gravel resources from public lands in the West are disposed, without charge, to State and local governments for use in public projects. H.R. 3972 should merely be viewed as the coastal States' equivalent to the 1947 Act governing onshore public lands mineral materials. And, like that law, commercial projects seeking OCS sand, gravel or shell resources should continue to pay the full fair market value of the materials after the enactment of the bill offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett). Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues' support of 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, I understood that there was a statement of administration policy, but we have not seen it and did not know whether it had been delivered or not. I think one thing we have to consider here is are all states equal? When the Constitution was established, it was established that all states would be equal. Well, inland states get sand and gravel for government projects from the Federal Government for free. Only the sand would be free. Ninety-eight percent of the costs incurred in these projects would still have to be paid and they would be paid. Those costs are dredging and bulldozing. And all Corps of Engineers projects must pass cost-benefit analysis. While I think that the gentleman from California does have a good point about this, and one which, frankly, I do not understand, which is why people will rebuild and rebuild in the same place that storms wash away, nonetheless, that is what is going on, and I do not think it is fair to treat coastal states differently than inland states as far as the Federal state of sand gravel and shell resources is concerned. So I continue to urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.