Barbara Cubin

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Will the gentleman vote in favor of the bill?

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

Mrs. CUBIN. I would like to know whether or not the gentleman is in favor of the bill that is here before us today or not.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I just wanted to ask any Member who has spoken to this bill on the other side if, in fact, they are in favor of the bill that is before us today? Would anyone like to enter into a colloquy? No one would like to enter into a colloquy on that issue, whether or not they are in favor or opposed to the vote that is here?

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the gentleman is not speaking to the bill in front of us, but referring to the merits of another bill. But I would also like to say that he is doing a very good job of it.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 273 and S. 222, the two matters just debated.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, in the dark of night on August 27, 2002, the town of Kaycee, Wyoming was overwhelmed by a four-foot surge of water from the Powder River caused by a severe and destructive rainstorm pouring down two-thirds of the town's annual rainfall within a six-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 a disaster 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 disaster 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. The federal disaster designation criteria need to be re-calibrated. In the Stafford Act, the law that governs disaster relief, Congress prohibited discrimination against small communities by outlawing the use of formulas and scales based on income and population. Somehow, however, the rules that came after the Congressional action neglected to observe these guidelines. That's why I am drafting legislation that will reinstate fairness in disaster relief. My bill will send FEMA back to the drawing board to create rules that will respect Congressional intent and not freeze out cities and towns across the country simply because they are small towns. It will also create an office of rural advocacy to assist small states in the application for disaster assistance and advocate for rural concerns in rulemakings and other administrative actions. When federal agencies promulgate rules that are counter to the intent of Congress, it is our obligation as a body to reassert those intentions and have the appropriate agency correct its errors. Passage of this bill will do just that.

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 Corp). 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. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This amendment is not about monopolies. This amendment is about a Member promoting his own district, and that is a very admirable thing to do. But what we have to do as Members of this body is protect our resources and not waste a precious resource. We have to protect the workers, and we have to protect the Federal Treasury and the State treasuries. Current law forces coal operators to either shut down their operation or abandon coal in place. We cannot waste the resource. It is too precious. We cannot have miners out of jobs because they have to shut down the operation. Powder River Basin coal sells for about $6 a ton. The lawsuits that the gentleman spoke to are about rate cases of utilities. Coal is sold in contracts. It is not regulated by the Surface Transportation Board, and that is what those lawsuits were about. These royalties are paid in advance. The Federal Treasury will lose no money. Please defeat the Rahall amendment.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition today to the Kind amendment. This amendment will do nothing to enhance our national energy security. In fact, it will just preserve the insecurity that we are going through today. The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct, these are unsettling and dangerous times. We are at war in the Middle East and many of the oil-producing nations in the world are either openly hostile toward the United States or are undergoing political turmoil. This turmoil has driven oil prices up, and meanwhile at home we are suffering a natural gas supply crisis. This winter natural gas prices reached the highest levels in history. These prices hurt American consumers, especially the elderly and the poor; and they hurt the economy. The gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment would allow unreasonable delays to continue by allowing the bureaucracy to continue its inefficient, ineffective methods of permitting. This title helps limit the time that can be involved so that we can get energy online faster, while at the same time providing environmentally healthy gas production. This is a good title in the bill. In the oil and gas title of the energy bill, we hold Federal agencies accountable for their leasing and permitting processes. The amendment does nothing to cut bureaucratic red tape on supplies that we already have, and it does nothing to keep energy flowing to America. In the oil and gas title, we also provide royalty relief for marginal wells on Federal lands so that these wells will not be shut in permanently when prices are prohibitively low. A marginal well is one that has almost reached the end of its productive life. Marginal wells can contain, say, 70 percent of the oil that was originally in the formation when the life of the well is depleted. It is very expensive to develop these marginal wells because you have to use tertiary production procedures. It is more expensive to produce marginal wells than it is large wells. And so these wells would be closed in permanently, forever, leaving 70 percent of the oil in there if we did not grant these incentives to marginal well lessees. Individually, marginal wells produce very little but collectively they produce one-third of our oil supply, of our gas supply, and almost as much oil as we import from Saudi Arabia. Critics of responsible oil and gas development are always saying that production of these wells is of no particular significance, but that is absolutely wrong. Also, the poster that he was using that said that the people who benefit from these oil and gas relief measures are the major oil companies, that is simply not the case. In reality, marginal wells are so prohibitively expensive that without these incentives the majors do not produce marginal wells. They sell the marginal leases to mom- and-pop organizations. Practically every single producer in my State is an independent producer. It is that way across the country. We are not talking about billions of dollars to Exxon, Texaco, Mobil and so on. We are talking about mom-and-pop operations that keep the oil, 33 percent, flowing to this country from marginal wells. This oil and gas title addresses the critical problems that are causing our supply crisis, but the gentleman from Wisconsin chooses to ignore reality and pretend that at some point this problem will just go away, that renewables and conservation will take care of it. Mr. Chairman, that is simply not the case. I ask my colleagues to defeat the Kind amendment.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am sorry that the color of the State of Wyoming was not in bright yellow on the chart that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) just showed the body. It should be in bright yellow because the Powder River Basin produces so much coal that all of those States that use cheap Wyoming coal have a lot of light in their lives because of that. Despite what my colleagues have heard from the sponsor about this amendment, the coal-leasing provisions are not about giving breaks to coal companies or creating monopolies that control Federal coal leases. In fact, the amendment creates an atmosphere that guarantees monopolies will exist in the coal industry. He has not given an explanation of exactly the way the situation is. The current law artificially raises the cost of bidding on Federal coal leases to the point that only the largest corporations in the world can afford to mine them, and what the energy bill does is, right now, when he says that there is no competition on these leases, he is actually misrepresenting, well he is representing his perspective, but I would aver that it is wrong. What happens is, people bid on the leases, and then if they cannot develop those leases, what he would have us do, because of financial costs, what he would have us do is not be able to ever develop those leases. So it would be leaving coal still in the ground. When prices are low on the world market, it is not cost-productive to produce those huge amounts of coal, so delays are necessary to produce the coal when the demand is high. That is exactly what the amendment does. The current law gives coal operators the option of either shutting down their operation or dumping coal at bargain-basement prices onto markets that are shared with all the other producers in the East, including West Virginia, and what happens when the coal companies have to dump this cheap coal is, the Federal Government gets fewer revenues, the State governments get fewer revenues. I just want to refer to the lawsuits that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) was discussing. The lawsuits that the gentleman brought forward are against the railroads. They are not against the coal companies. They are against the railroads because the railroads, some say, are charging monopolistic prices to transport the coal. As a matter of fact, coal in the Powder River Basin on the spot market is selling at $6 a ton; the Appalachian areas are selling for $27 to $35 a ton. Historically, northern and central Appalachia spot prices sell about $20 to $30 per ton higher than Powder River Basin coal. The bill before us is in no way, and will in no way, encourage monopolies, and most importantly of all, it will help America's small coal operators. It will help coal miners. I am very worried about miners' jobs. We have a huge mining population that mine in my State. I am very worried about that. I am doing everything I can to protect their jobs. This will protect their jobs because they will be able to produce all the coal, and it will not be left. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I recognize myself for 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I neglected to say in my opening comments that, by the way, the royalties are paid on this coal even though it is not produced. So the royalties are paid in advance to the Federal Government and to the State governments under this proposal that is in the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon). (Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. Many of the nations that we rely on for our energy needs prop up the very same regimes that our soldiers are battling against today. Just as our military is defending our national security, this Congress must act to defend our energy security because we are not secure as a Nation without energy security. This bill sets the United States on a focused course to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, all the while meeting and exceeding the most stringent environmental standards any government has ever imposed. Our Nation's public lands hold many treasures, from the Grand Tetons to Yosemite National Park; but some of our most valuable resources are clean-burning natural gas, oil and coal that can reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources and keep our environment clean. The Energy Policy Act will provide better access to these oil and gas reserves and create a reasonable rights-of-way fee structure for pipelines, electric transmission, and telecommunications infrastructure. This will benefit both our rural and urban communities. In addition, this act requires closer consultation between Federal agencies when leasing decisions are made for national forest system lands. The Energy Policy Act of 2003 will encourage more efficient government management of lands to reduce the backlog of pending lease decisions and permits to drill while maintaining America's unsurpassed environmental standards. This act will maximize the recovery of coal on Federal lands which provides over 20 percent of our Nation's total energy consumption. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Resources developed this legislation only after holding well over a dozen hearings on energy production and hearing testimony from Members of Congress, local government officials, environmentalists, industry representatives, and administrative agencies. This is a good plan, and I commend it to my colleagues and urge its adoption. The time has finally come to follow President Bush's lead and ensure that the people of this Nation will have a secure and affordable source of energy.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment and all of the other amendments which have been offered today on this bill, and I encourage Members to vote against the amendments and for the bill. I am the mother of two sons. One time when they were young, little boys, the boys and I were alone at night and we had a burglar break into our house. The fear that caused me to find out that someone had been in my house, rifling through my house, really made me take a look at self-defense and my right to own and bear arms. I became a big advocate of that at that time. I appreciate all of the scenarios the other side is throwing out about why we need this amendment, because I agree, there are too many deaths due to gunshot wounds in this country. Too many children are dying because they are getting ahold of weapons that were legally owned, but were not taken care of correctly and were not separated from the ammunition. That is happening, and that is a problem. But these folks have entirely the wrong answer. We need a common-sense, balanced answer to treating problems like this, and it does not involve taking away our second amendment, our right to own and defend ourselves. We not only deserve to be defended from terrorists home and abroad, but we also deserve to be able to buy guns to defend ourselves in our own home. My sons are 25 and 30. They are blond-haired and blue-eyed. One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person, or does that mean because my----

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out that I did not break any rulings of the House, but I also want to point out just as a fellow Member that I certainly would never say anything or even think anything that would offend my neighbors on the other side, and well, obviously it did happen. So I would like to apologize to my colleague for his sensitivities, but certainly I would never do that. So I would like to continue on with my remarks. But the next question I wanted to ask is, does that amendment mean----

Mrs. CUBIN. No, I will not withdraw the words.

Mrs. CUBIN. Yes. Yes, I did apologize if the words were offensive to anyone in the House. But I will not say I broke rules of the House. I did not. I apologized because as a person I want to do that.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I do not withdraw my words.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the laws we have in existence today are very, very adequate to take care of all the situations that have been brought up by Members on the other side if they are enforced. The changes that need to be made in this country are to do things like to fund drug treatment programs, to fund the war on drugs, to help single parents be able to find time to give guidance to their children, to have doctors not be afraid to ask their patients if they have guns in their house, and if they have guns in their house, how do they store them. They ask every other health care issue about patients. We need to change our society, and we need to acknowledge that gun ownership is not an unhealthy thing, but what is unhealthy is not enforcing the laws that we have on the books right now; and the laws that we have are totally adequate. I urge my fellow Members to reject this amendment and support this bill and protect our second amendment rights.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the Chair's ruling and the fact that it was upheld, but this is not something that I can just leave as it is, because I do not think that the situation that just occurred is good for the body, and it is not good for the individual people involved in it. My words intended to state, and if I had been able to finish my sentence and my thought, they would have stated that I do not believe in stereotyping anyone, any time, ever, for anything. That is what I believe, and I believe that from the bottom of my heart. I do apologize, not just to the gentleman from North Carolina. I apologize to everyone who may have been hurt in any way or insulted because of my remarks. But I really intend only, only to make the point, and I will speak on this bill later, but to make the point that stereotyping is always wrong. It does not matter who it is; it is always a wrong thing to do. I thank the Chairman, and I thank the gentleman for allowing me to have the time to address the body.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 2003, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. I am proud to announce that Green River High School will represent the State of Wyoming in this national event. These young scholars have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. As a result of their experience they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The three-day We the People national competition is modeled after Congressional hearings, consisting of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The We the People program provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels. The curriculum not only enhances students' understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, but also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help the students to become active, responsible citizens. The Green River High School class is currently preparing for their participation in the national competition in Washington, D.C. These young people inspire me as they advocate fundamental ideals that bind us together as a nation. They are setting a positive example for their peers as well as future generations. I am very proud of these students, and wish them the best of luck at the We the People national finals.