Barbara Cubin

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3855.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I hail from a State that respects the fundamental, individual right to own firearms granted to all Americans by the Second Amendment. This right, so essential to our liberty, is under assault by legal teams bent on destroying the firearms industry. They have tried and failed to accomplish this in the People's House and in State legislatures. Now they are using our courts, filing lawsuits with no legal merit, yet still incurring tremendous legal expense. These lawsuits rest on the misguided notion that those in the firearm industry are liable for the criminal misuse of their products. This is a dangerous precedent. It makes as much sense as suing car manufacturers for damage, injury or death caused by car thieves or joy riders. It is important to every firearm owner in the State of Wyoming that these lawsuits stop. If allowed to continue, firearms could become unavailable and unaffordable to the law-abiding citizen. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act will stop these lawsuits, while protecting causes of action based on negligence, defective product and other valid claims. I ask my colleagues to pass this legislation. By doing so, we stand up for the constitutional right of law-abiding Americans to protect themselves, their homes, and their families.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that certain Federal agencies with permitting, licensing, and leasing authority are requiring some of my constituents to agree to stipulations in their coal leases that go beyond protecting threatened or endangered species. For example, before the Bureau of Land Management will issue a lease, they require the lessee to agree to potential modifications in the lease. These modifications can be based not only on species that are threatened or endangered, but also on species that are proposed to be listed, candidate species, and distinct population segments. Section 10 of the bill authorizes cooperative agreements between Federal agencies and States that cover candidate species and any other species that the State and the Secretary agree is at risk of being listed as an endangered or threatened species. Is the intent of the legislation to broaden the scope of the ESA by allowing the government to regulate species that are not yet threatened or endangered by imposing new potential regulatory requirements, withholding of permits and licenses, or requiring special stipulations on Federal leases?

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

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his answer. That was the way that I read the bill too, and I wanted the congressional intent to be on the record.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, would the chairman of the Committee on Resources agree to enter into a colloquy?

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today in strong and wavering support of the Flag Protection Amendment. I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this important measure. Our flag is more than just a piece of cloth. From Lexington to Gettysburg to Falluja, more than a million brave Americans have given their lives in defense of our flag and the American ideals it represents. We must honor their ultimate sacrifice, and the sacrifices made by the almost 60,000 veterans in my home state of Wyoming, by defending our flag with the courage and resolve they proved possible. The Flag Protection Amendment will protect from desecration the most widely recognized symbol of freedom and democracy worldwide, one that offers hope and comfort to the students and teachers, lawmakers, and military men and women who pledge allegiance to the flag every day across the nation. With that, I strongly urge final passage of the Flag Protection Amendment.

Mrs. CUBIN

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

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the chairman and encourage passage of this resolution. The Beartooth Highway connects two cities in Montana, but it passes through Wyoming; and many people need to travel on the Beartooth Highway in order to get into Yellowstone National Park. For many, many years this highway has been sorely neglected. It is not safe in its current condition, but it has not been safe for a long time. Yellowstone National Park is the crown gem of the park system, and it is important to the whole country. So this is something that the country needs to do at this time. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this amendment to strike the language which would once again delay full implementation and rightful implementation of country-of-origin labeling for meat and meat products. Congress authorized mandatory COOL in the 2002 farm bill, and delaying it further is an injustice to American farmers, ranchers, and consumers. According to the Food and Drug Administration, which is the Federal agency charged with ensuring food safety, less than 1 percent of all food products imported into the United States are inspected by customs. If a meat product enters the country shelf-ready, such as ground beef, it is not required at all to be inspected by the USDA. A USDA approval stamp only appears on meat products which have been transformed into a graded cut. What this means is that less than 1 percent of the beef that is imported from foreign countries is inspected by the USDA. The USDA is in place to protect us. As a housewife and a mother, I would gladly pay a few extra cents on every pound of hamburger or on every pound of beef that I buy if I knew that that beef was produced in the United States, because I would have a sense of safety that my family was eating meat that was inspected, because all American beef is inspected. Essentially, a shipment such as ground beef could be imported into America from a foreign country and wind up on a family's dinner table having never been inspected by American authorities. Without the implementation of mandatory COOL, we will continue under a voluntary program, and the status quo clearly does not effectively protect the safety of American consumers. America's agriculture industry produces some of the safest, highest quality products in the world. If given a chance, Americans will choose American products time and time again.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 228, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, last fall, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concluded that some components of the Universal Service Fund (USF) are subject to the Antideficiency Act, even though USF dollars are not paid out of the U.S. Treasury. This unexpected interpretation disrupted an important component of the universal service program for nearly 6 months and resulted in the Universal Service Administrative Company losing millions of dollars in investments that would otherwise have been used to support communications services in rural and high cost areas, as well as the E- Rate program for school districts and libraries. Congress intervened late last year by temporarily exempting the USF from the Antideficiency Act until December 31, 2005. That exemption will be expiring soon, and many believe the Antideficiency Act also threatens to disrupt the much larger High Cost and Low Income USF programs. It is vital that Congress address this issue as soon as possible to permanently eliminate the uncertainty hanging over the entire USF. That's why I am introducing legislation, along with Representative Gonzales, to permanently exempt the USF from the Antideficiency Act. This is a necessary step to ensure that consumers will continue to have access to quality telecommunications services and our schools and libraries will have Internet connectivity, all at affordable rates. This is a bipartisan initiative that enjoys support from a broad coalition of stakeholders in the telecommunications, high-tech, educational arenas, as well as local governments and public interest organizations. This is a companion measure to a bill introduced in the other body, which also has broad bipartisan support. Fixing the situation is a time-sensitive matter and Representative Gonzales and I urge our colleagues to support this measure and help us work toward prompt passage.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, as the Members know, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, or PILT as it is called, compensates units of general government for property taxes that they otherwise lose due to Federal ownership of the land within that locality. Our local counties then use these dollars to help fund essential services such as law enforcement, health care, education, firefighting, and search and rescue. Unfortunately, despite the local benefits to this program in all 50 States, a large majority of the congressional districts' full funding of PILT, as is authorized by law, is simply not a commitment that this Congress has been willing to meet in the past years. My home State of Wyoming has been denied over $75 million in PILT funding over the past 10 years that would have been used to make our communities safer, healthier, and cleaner. I truly appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member, to restore the PILT funding that the administration tried to cut. They even went a step further to show their support of PILT and added an additional $3 million over last year's level. However, this level funding still falls far short of the authorized level and it simply is not enough for these communities. The Cubin-Rahall-Cannon-Udall amendment would add $12 million to PILT by redirecting funds from the Department of Interior's management, salaries, and expenses at the higher levels. Our amendment still does not bring PILT to full funding, but it would reflect a renewed commitment of Congress to do so by providing approximately 80 percent of the authorized level for this year's funding. It is also important to emphasize that this amendment still allows the Department of Interior to spend $10 million more for administrative costs than they did in 2005. We are not cutting salaries. We are simply reducing the $23 million increase that they would receive under this bill and instead directing a portion of those funds back to local counties where every dollar will make a real difference on the ground where people live and where they work. So I would like to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for co-sponsoring this amendment, as well as the National Association of Counties, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and other members of the Western Caucus for the leadership that they have shown on this issue. It is very important to every single State in the country. Shortchanging local communities by underfunding PILT is simply bad policy, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mrs. CUBIN. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, The United States entered into a Totalization agreement with Mexico on June 29, 2004. This agreement, like 20 others currently in force, is an effort to reconcile time worked in another country--under a different tax code and pension system--with time worked here at home, to ensure workers have the proper amount of credits for their lifetime contributions to their retirement. The Social Security Act allows for these types of agreements, but, unfortunately, it has a flawed mechanism for Congressional approval. Frankly, there are serious questions about whether the statutory approval process for Totalization agreements is even Constitutional. Under current law, the President negotiates an agreement with another country, and then submits it to Congress for approval. Congress then has 60 days during which either the House or Senate are in session to consider the agreement and to disapprove it if necessary. The problem is that if one House of Congress passed a motion of disapproval, precedent suggests that it would be ruled an unconstitutional legislative veto. The bill I'm introducing today will correct that. Since Totalization agreements are similar to trade agreements, I have proposed changes to the Social Security Act that will allow for an expedited consideration of any agreements for congressional approval, like we do for trade agreements. It would also require an actual affirmative vote for the agreement to take effect, rather than the current 60-day rule where if neither house acts, the agreement is deemed as accepted. A 60-day use- it-or-lose-it process does not respect the responsibilities of this House in drafting the laws of the country. We need to protect the role of the legislative branch as the law- making body of this land. Current law does not do this, but my bill, the Totalization Agreement Congressional Approval Act 2005, will.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, in the dark of night on August 27, 2002, the town of Kaycee, Wyoming was overwhelmed by a 4-foot surge of water from the Powder River caused by a severe rainstorm--pouring down 2/3 of the town's annual rainfall within a 6-hour period. The damage was disastrous, over 80 percent of Kaycee's businesses and one-third of their residences were damaged or destroyed. But despite Kaycee's massive loss--one that would have cost billions had Manhattan, Los Angeles or Chicago lost 80 percent of their businesses--there was no disaster declaration. This flood effectively erased the community of Kaycee, and it's absolutely preposterous that damage of this magnitude does not qualify as a disaster. A comparable disaster in Washington, D.C. would have destroyed 96,196 homes and 15,575 businesses. Washington, D.C. would not function after such a catastrophe and neither can Kaycee, Wyoming. In fact, under today's criteria, a majority of Wyoming's communities could be destroyed without receiving a disaster designation, as Kaycee has shown. Rural America needs help and that's why I am introducing the Rural Disaster Assistance Fairness Act of 2005. My bill will create a Small State Advocate who will participate in the disaster declaration process, assist small States in disaster declaration requests, and ensure the needs of rural communities are being addressed. Additionally, it would require the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress regarding whether current regulations addressing small state disaster declarations are meeting the needs of states with populations of less than one million, and whether current disaster regulations are in compliance with statutory restrictions regarding arithmetic formulas and sliding scales. This is an important bill and I urge my colleagues to join me in updating the laws and regulations that treat many rural States unfairly compared to their larger neighbors.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, we have all heard talk of how Wyoming and other rural States do not deserve their razor-thin slice of the Homeland Security pie because they have higher per capita funding allocations than the likes of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. What the per capita statistics don't tell you is that Wyoming's fiscal year 2005 share of first responder dollars amounted to around 4 percent of New York's $298.3 million. Attacking the first responder base minimum funding level might make for a good press release, but in reality, the per capita argument holds about as much water as a wicker basket. Wyoming's population may be spread thin, but this only presents an additional challenge to our first responders, who must deal with vast areas, rugged terrain and harsh weather with limited resources. In 2004, nearly 100,000 shipments of hazardous materials rolled through Wyoming, whose rails and roads help make up the backbone of the Northwest United States commodity corridor. Wyoming is home to national parks and landmarks, oil and gas pipelines, and coal reserves that supply over half of the States in the Nation. Wyoming houses intercontinental ballistic missiles critical to our national defense system, placed there because rural America was thought to be safe and secure. Perhaps the First Responder Grants Board would adequately weigh these points, and perhaps not. I would rather avoid relying on such bureaucratic uncertainty. I stand in opposition to H.R. 1544's severe reduction in the base minimum funding level because Wyoming's first responders depend on these very dollars to do their jobs and keep our citizens safe. The need for reforming the grant distribution system is clear, and I applaud the Homeland Security Committee for their efforts to incorporate risk assessment and hold States accountable for how they spend those dollars. But I simply cannot support a bill that marginalizes the needs and unique challenges faced by first responders in rural States like Wyoming.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Wyoming is often called the energy basket of America, but people in my State who are taking out emergency loans just to fill up their pickup's tanks would not know it. In my home town of Casper, gas is $2.10 a gallon; in Cheyenne it is almost $2.20. It is $2.30 in Riverton and $2.40 in Jackson. Madam Chairman, that is just too much. Some of the people around the country who pay close to $3 a gallon might think Wyoming's prices are a bargain. But remember, Wyoming covers almost 100,000 square miles. That is a lot of miles on the highway to do business, and a lot of money at the gas pump. Wyoming cannot support subways or mass transit when we do not have masses in the first place. This spike in gas prices has real consequences for people in Wyoming whose drives to work are measured not by the length of the country and western song on the radio, but by the entire country and western album. When our country was threatened by terror attacks on 9/11, Congress acted. Now Congress is called upon to act again. To keep our economy sound in Wyoming, we must pass this energy plan. This bill will cut our reliance on foreign energy and put our focus where it belongs, on domestic production. Would you rather get the oil we need from the Middle East or from midwest Wyoming? I know where I stand, and I have a number of bills within this package that address domestic energy production. It seems I have spent most of my congressional lifetime helping to develop this package, so I know a little bit about it. It will strengthen America's standing as the Nation with the most strict environmental laws on Earth. It will streamline the process to safely explore for new energy sources and put us on the road to energy self- sufficiency. The opponents of this bill urge a ``no'' vote because it is not a quick fix at the pump. Madam Chairman, since when does a quick fix actually fix anything? When does a ``no'' vote without an alternative actually fix anything? What America needs and what we have needed for a long time, for more than a generation, is a comprehensive energy plan. I urge my colleagues to support the plan before us today.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important decisions for the founder of a business is ``choice-of-entity,'' or the decision to operate as a corporation, partnership, limited liability company (LLC), or other form of business. The law regarding choice-of-entity has changed enormously in the last 15 years, particularly with the widespread adoption of laws authorizing the creation of the LLC. As a result, many small business owners have more ``choice of entity'' flexibility than ever before. First authorized in Wyoming in 1977, LLCs are organized under State law, and are now recognized in all 50 states. In essence, LLCs are allowed corporate treatment for local law purposes and partnership treatment for Federal income tax purpose. LLCs also provide for more than one class of ownership, allowing for increased flexibility to allocate income or losses to different investors. The flexibility and protections of the LLC has led to a rapid expansion in the number of small businesses electing to operate in this manner. In 1995, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) adopted the position that general partnerships could be converted into LLCs with little or no tax effects. Unfortunately, as incorporated entities, this does not hold true for small businesses operated as subchapter S corporations (S Corps). Created in 1958, the S Corp structure allows for no more than 75 shareholders, can issue only one class of stock, and cannot have partnerships or corporations as shareholders. Yet, until the rise of the LLC, the S Corp structure provided, for all practical purposes, the only way that a small business could enjoy the corporate protections of limited liability without being burdened with corporate taxation. Taxed much the same way as partnerships, many older, family-owned, small businesses operate as S corps. Clearly, the original intent for creating the S Corp structure was the same reasoning that led to the creation of LLCs--to provide a simple and flexible tax category for small and family-owned businesses. However, despite the similarities to LLCs, S Corps are not granted the same conversion flexibility as other partnership-like entities and are instead grouped with larger companies under a cumbersome corporate structure. My bill would modernize the tax treatment of S Corps, allowing them the same choice-of-entity flexibility offered to other small businesses operating as LLCs. This is a common sense change that is overdue.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, as someone who respects human life in all its stages, I wholeheartedly support S. 686 and efforts to save Terri Schiavo. Terri is not in a coma, nor are extraordinary measures being taken to keep her alive. Terri may need feeding tubes to help her eat, but that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve the constitutional protections afforded by our judicial system. That Terri's life could be taken without such consideration is shocking to the conscience and contrary to notions of the rule of law and due process. It is imperative that Congress act swiftly to enact this bipartisan legislation, without which Terri Schiavo would most certainly die without the legal redress she so rightfully deserves. With that, I urge my colleagues to pass S. 686 and give Terri Schiavo and her family their day in Federal court.