Barbara Cubin

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2990) to amend the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 to authorize additional projects under that Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2990, the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2001, will amend Public Law 106- 576. This legislation adds 14 new water conservation projects, increases study authorizations from $2 million to $8 million, and increases facility construction authorizations from $10 million to $47 million. The Rio Grande has been severely impacted, as have most areas in the west, by drought conditions during the last decade. Many of these drought conditions are the worse that have ever been seen, at least recorded. These droughts conditions have made it difficult to supply Rio Grande water to the 7 million people who depend on it. Implementation of significant improvements to irrigation canal delivery systems, aggressive water conservation programs, and improved water management are critical needs that must be taken seriously. H.R. 2990 will work within the existing framework of Public Law 106-576 to address these critical needs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to point out how cruel at times Mother Nature can be. There is flooding in Texas at the same time very nearby there is a drought that has been going on for 6 years. I also want everyone to know that we are very aware that there is a drought all the way across the West. The drought conditions in my own State of Wyoming are the worst that we have ever seen. It is that way throughout the West. Now that we are faced with the wildfires that we have, the drought becomes all the more significant in environmental issues and in the health of our public lands. This is just the beginning. I believe that the Congress will be here to help other people in other States with the drought. But this particular bill is very important because it involves an international treaty and it involves water that is available, but we simply have to be able to save and use in a more efficient way the water that is there. In my own State, it is lack of water. Period. But the Congress will be there to help those people as this session goes on. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) and add my support and the committee's support for his hard work, for the field hearings that they have had. This bill has been vetted extremely well through the House. It does deserve to be passed. We do need to start dealing with the issues of the drought. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials in the Record on the six bills just considered: H.R. 4870, H.R. 3258, H.R. 3401, H.R. 3048, H.R. 2990, and H.R. 3917.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise because I have seen something tonight that I have not ever seen in the 8 years that I have been in Congress. And I think it is a sad night tonight. I do not believe that our party would limit the debate by a Member on an open rule on an appropriations bill. They would not do that to the other side, and I do not believe the other side would do that to us. Yet we have done this to one of our own tonight. While I oppose the goal of the gentleman from Arizona, I am in favor of this bill, I think it is a good bill, and I intend to support it and vote against the amendments; but I think what happened here procedurally tonight was very wrong. If we have an open rule, then we need to have an open rule and to limit one gentleman, Mr. Chairman, is not right. I hope that we do not fall into that later because we do not like the issue that someone is bringing forward.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, on roll call 295 I was detained by the construction on the Capitol Hill complex. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 29, doctors of optometry from around the nation will gather in New Orleans to elect Dr. J. Patrick Cummings to be the 81st president of the American Optometric Association. Dr. Cummings is a resident of Sheridan, Wyoming, and it is a pleasure for me to take a moment today to congratulate him on this honor. Dr. Cummings is a graduate of Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon, and the university's College of Optometry, where he has served as an adjunct professor since 1994. Dr. Cummings has been in private practice in Sheridan since 1977. He also served as a consulting optometrist at the VA medical center in Sheridan for 13 years and is currently on the staff at Sheridan County Memorial Hospital. He is a Fellow in the American Academy of Optometry. As you might expect, Dr. Cummings has been an active member in his professional societies. He has been recognized twice as Wyoming's Optometrist of the Year. He was elected to the American Optometric Association's board of trustees in 1994 and has held a number of association leadership posts during the past nine years. In addition to his professional involvement, Dr. Cummings has been active in a wide range of civic activities. These include: the Lion's Club, Jaycees, Sheridan County Memorial Hospital Foundation, Chamber of Commerce and Sheridan Area Community Foundation. He also has served as a house captain for Christmas in April, a CPR instructor and trainer, a Red Cross advanced first aid instructor and a National Ski Patrol first aid advisor. Dr. Cummings has been a member of the National Ski Patrol since 1978 and was a member of the Professional Ski Instructors Association. An avid pilot and aircraft builder, Dr. Cummings has constructed and flown two home-built aircraft and has helped in the construction of several others. Dr. Cummings and his wife Becky have three children, Patrick, Abby and Josh. The American Optometric Association is the professional society for the nation's 33,000 optometrists. Dr. Cummings will lead the association as it continues to work to improve eye and vision care in the United States. Dr. J. Patrick Cummings has distinguished himself as a leader in his profession. I am confident that he will have a successful term as president, and I join his family, friends and colleagues in wishing him well.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Small Airport Safety, Security, and Air Service Improvement Act. Safety and Security, we hear these words a lot now--and we should, we are fighting a war and working to protect the home front. This is a fact that effects all legislation every day. In fact, every appropriations bill we debate this year will be focused on winning the war and providing resources to those defending America. That means some difficult decisions for us in Congress. This bill, however, is not a difficult decision, it's actually quite simple. If common sense prevails and we enact H.R. 1979, we will provide improved flexibility to those airports that receive Airport Improvement Program funds (AIP). I'm one who believes in local control and flexibility. Every time Congress has embraced that concept we have seen a success story. In this case, H.R. 1979 says that in addition to other AIP-approved projects, AIP funds can now be used for a control tower. It seems pretty simple to me, we're giving the airports AIP money based on a formula anyway, so why not let them use the money in the manner that best serves their needs? But some have expressed concern that airports can't be trusted to spend their money properly. Some must believe that landing a plane safely isn't an important component of airport operation. However, I can assure all of those who oppose this bill that the funds will be used properly, and spent on airport safety priorities. Actually, the real sticking point on H.R. 1979 is the retroactive provision. As drafted, this bill will allow airports that have built a tower since 1996 to be reimbursed for those funds up to about one million dollars. That's seems like a lot of money to folks in Wyoming, but in the scope of the AIP budget, it's by no means out of line. In fact it recognizes that there are proactive airports that have built a tower to increase the safety of local aviation. This provision will ensure that leaders in aviation safety will not be penalized for their investment in airport infrastructure. Now some will say we can't afford this, or that it will take away from other priorities. I can't disagree more. AIP funds are determined using a formula, and we are not debating that allocation. We are simply considering what other uses will be allowable uses of AIP funds for improving the safety of an airport. This debate should be about local control, not Congressional control. It reminds me a little about the class size debate in the Education bill. So many people wanted to designate funds for class size reduction, but not allow any flexibility for those funds if a school already has small classes. Shouldn't those schools be allowed to build important facilities if they have met the class size standard? We have small classes in Wyoming, we also have airports that plan properly and that can be trusted to use their AIP funds appropriately. I encourage passage of the bill as drafted, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4103, the Martin's Cove Land Transfer Act. Although Chairman Hansen and I stand on opposite sides of this issue, he was very generous to grant my request for a field hearing in Wyoming regarding the Martin's Cove Land Transfer Act. To say there has been a great deal of interest in this legislation in my home State, both of support and opposition, is an understatement. Martin's Cove represents a part of Wyoming's heritage, and a very tragic chapter in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As anyone who has been involved in this issue is well aware, Martin's Cove is an issue where emotions run unusually high. This bill has posed a very difficult decision for myself in representing the people of Wyoming. I have always believed in the concept of trading, swapping, or selling Federal lands in my State, but only if the result makes good sense for the people of Wyoming. After a great deal of deliberation and fact finding, at the end of the day it is my duty to represent the preponderance of opinions in the state. I believe that the majority of my constituents do not support this legislation over concerns of access and policy, and therefore I cannot support this bill. My vote against passage of Chairman Hansen's bill at the Resources Committee mark-up was not a vote about the LDS Church, which I greatly admire. Rather, it was a vote to maintain the status quo in the management and maintenance at Martin's Cove for future generations to visit. Management which has proven very successful and fruitful for the site and to visitors of the site. During committee consideration of the bill I felt it necessary to amend the legislation with regards to several points, recognizing the bill may become law. I was successful in amending the bill to secure free and open access to the area for the public and require that the proceeds of the sale are kept within the State of Wyoming to benefit and educate the public on our historic trails in the form of the National Historic Trails Center in Casper, Wyoming. Even with these improvements to the bill, I must continue to oppose its passage because the majority of my constituents oppose the bill. Many believe the bill sets a bad precedent, and continue to question why the legislation is necessary. Madam Speaker, I'm a fervent advocate of the old adage: ``If it isn't broken, why fix it?'' H.R. 4103 is a solution without a problem.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I stand in very strong support of repealing permanently the death tax. I personally know ranchers and farmers in my great State of Wyoming who have had to liquidate, had to sell their property, in order to pay the death taxes on their property. These are sometimes fifth-generation families, where they have done nothing but ranch or farm for five generations, and that is all they ever wanted to do. Sometimes they will sell half of their ranch, but they still end up having to sell the whole thing, because they cannot make a living with only half of the property. We are not talking about wealthy people here. We are talking about small businessmen. We are talking about people who feed this country. We simply cannot afford to have our food supply controlled by big insurance companies who are able to afford to buy the ranches in the first place and then pay taxes on them, insurance companies, people like Ted Turner. We need to have middle class, hard-working farmers and ranchers that love the land, on the land, working the land. Unless we repeal the death tax, that concept will not survive in the United States of America. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, one- third of small business owners will have to outright sell or liquidate their businesses to pay the death tax. Half of those will have to lay off 30 or more people. So it is not just farmers and ranchers that suffer from having to pay these exorbitant death taxes, it is small businesses all across this country. We all know small businesses are the backbone of this country, and we need to protect them. We need to allow them to expand their businesses and create more jobs, instead of paying the money to the government to be spent on other things.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have been watching this debate for the most part of the morning, and I have to say it is shameless. And I think it is shameless when women use their gender to try to achieve political goals. The fact is this bill is about the defense of our country, our national security and our homeland security. We need to get this bill passed so that we can get the proper equipment, training and everything else that our troops need while they are there defending our freedom. When these young men and women get up every day they button on their jackets. When they do that they are basically saying, I will die for you today to protect your freedom. And what this bill is about is getting the money and the resources that we need for homeland security and for the defense of our country. We know that we are under threats from terrorism across this country. And to stand up here and refer to starving seniors, and taking drugs away from seniors and from young women, taking checks away, Social Security checks, they know this is not true. They know that is disingenuous; and Mr. Chairman, that is a debate that needs to take place on another day. Everyone in this Congress on both sides of the aisle are committed to saving Social Security and seeing to it that all of the seniors and all of disabled people in this country have a living and have health care and have food. Now, let us cut with the dramatics and get down to the basics of what this is about. This is about defense and homeland security. Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask that we cut down on the emotions, get to the facts and get on with the debate of this bill.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, rural America. We often hear of the unique challenges that face those of us who live and work in the unspoiled expanses of this great nation. As someone who represents the least populated state in the country, let me say that we wouldn't trade those challenges for all the urban conveniences in the world. There are, however, basic needs deemed necessary to conduct our everyday lives whether you live in Brooklyn, New York or Basin, Wyoming. One of those essential, and obtainable, requirements is access to modern and efficient telecommunications. Telecommunications is an important component by which we can run small businesses, visit distant relatives, or just order a pizza. During the last two Congresses, I have been successful advocating for wholesale changes in the way the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates small and mid-size telecommunications companies. Those bills have passed the House but languish in the Senate. The basic tenet of the bills is to ensure that the FCC writes separate regulations for companies that are smaller than their oftentimes much larger competitors. Common sense shouid tell us that identical regulations imposed on telecommunications companies regardless of size translates into the over-regulation of the small and mid-size companies. Although the FCC initially fought these changes, I am pleased to report that most of the changes in the bills have ultimately been incorporated by the FCC. This leads me to the introduction of the bill I bring before the House today. The ``Rural Wireless Telecommunications Enhancement Act of 2002'' will bring about significant changes by which the FCC regulates small wireless telecommunications companies. If you've been fortunate enough to travel through the state of Wyoming, you may have been surprised to find that your wireless phone did not work or that it received marginal coverage at best. One way in which we can address the comprehensive development of wireless telecommunications infrastructure in rural areas is to stop the FCC from burdening small wireless companies with onerous, one-size-fits-all rules meant to regulate the largest wireless carriers. That way small wireless companies can put their resources into developing new technologies and deploying their infrastructure instead of spending it on high-priced Washington lobbyists and regulatory attorneys. The goal of the ``Rural Wireless Telecommunications Enhancement Act'' is simple: to give rural wireless customers better service and more choices.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, the legislation that is before us today designates the United States Post Office in Rock Springs, Wyoming, in honor of Mr. Teno Roncalio. Mr. Roncalio is one of those exceptional individuals who has spent his entire life serving the public and serving the people of the great State of Wyoming. It is an honor and a privilege for me to be able to present this legislation on his behalf today. Mr. Roncalio, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) stated, is a Democrat. He is from the other party than I belong to, but it never mattered to him when he was dealing with his constituents whether they were Republicans or Democrats. He represented Wyoming in the noblest of ways, in the most sincere of ways. He is a native son of a small town in Wyoming known as Rock Springs, which is in the southwest corner of the State. It is along the Union Pacific Railroad that connected the East and the West and helped develop the West. This is where he grew up, where he attended high school, and spent most of his youth. He later went on to graduate from the University of Wyoming. As a decorated World War II veteran, he was awarded the Silver Star for Gallantry in Action and was named to the United States Army Officer Candidates Hall of Fame. After serving in the military, Mr. Roncalio continued on with his public service, this time in loyal service to the State of Wyoming as a U.S. Representative in this very body. He served five terms, during which time he successfully brought Wyoming's concerns to the attention of this Nation, and he did so with great strength of heart and compassion. As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) stated, Wyoming does have but one representative in the United States House of Representatives, so that representative has to work harder and be more passionate because we have all the issues that every other congressman has, plus issues that are unique to Wyoming as a rural State, being the lowest populated State. Mr. Roncalio was passionate in his love for the people of Wyoming. When he served in Congress, it was a time in history when groundbreaking legislation was being adopted, such as the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act and the dawning of Medicare and Medicaid. While he was in Congress, he worked diligently to boost Wyoming's share of mineral royalties, which is a driving force in our State's economy to this day. He also sponsored legislation establishing a number of recreational areas in the State, including Flaming Gorge, Big Horn Canyon, and the Fossil Butte Monument. His contribution to environmental concerns and preserving the beauty and history of Wyoming cannot be overlooked. After leaving Congress in 1978, Teno returned to his native Wyoming where he resumed his law practice. He continues to live in the State to this day. Please join me in acknowledging his great dedication to public service, to the State of Wyoming, to the Nation, and to all of the people that he loved.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor a Wyoming teacher today who has achieved national recognition for exemplary service to her students and her community. Christine French of Newcastle has been named the recipient of a Christa McAuliffe Fellowship and has spent the $28,000 award not on herself, but on her students. Christine used the money to buy wireless networked laptop computers and other information technology tools to be used by students at Newcastle High School. These hands-on tools will help students learn how to use real-world applications in a classroom setting and will help to ensure a quality education for the students of Newcastle High. It is vital that we continue to encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution that Christine has made. We all need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together to make our communities better. Teachers like Christine are inspiring examples for us all, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor a young Wyoming student today who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Chelsie Gorzalka of Clearmont has been named one of Wyoming's top honorees in the 2002 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor bestowed on the most impressive student volunteers in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Chelsie is being recognized for her work around Wyoming to educate young children about the dangers of tobacco and drugs. Chelsie presents puppet programs, solicits volunteer puppeteers, leads rehearsals, makes anti-tobacco posters and arranges exhibits at local health fairs. Chelsie's work shows that young Americans can--and do--play important roles in our communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future. It is vital that we continue to encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution that Chelsie has made. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like Chelsie are inspiring examples for us all, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor a young Wyoming student today who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Tabetha Waits of Rawlins has been named one of Wyoming's top honorees in the 2003 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor bestowed on the most impressive student volunteers in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Tabetha is being recognized for her work around Wyoming to educate young children about the dangers of tobacco and drugs. Tabetha organized ``You Can't Break Our Stride,'' an all-school walk-a-thon that raised nearly $10,000 to aid victims and families affected by the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11. Tabetha's work shows that young Americans can--and do--play important roles in our communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future. It is vital that we continue to encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution that Tabetha has made. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like Tabetha are inspiring examples for us all, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent the great state of Wyoming in this House of Representatives. Nothing reminds me more clearly of the true nature of that honor than each time I look upon the brave men and women who wear the uniforms of America's armed forces. I have had the pleasure of meeting many of these young patriots. Other times I see their dedicated faces in newspaper photos back home to announce their achievements. One such photo that I've viewed for the most tragic of reasons pictures Army Specialist Jonn Joseph Edmunds of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Jonn Edmunds was one of two Army Rangers killed on Friday, October 19, 2001, in the crash of a helicopter in Pakistan. Jonn and his fellow Ranger were the first American combat-related deaths of our necessary new war. Look at this young mans portrait and you'll instantly recognize a fierce determination to be a good warrior, a good American, and a good citizen. The military men and women defending this nation and its magnificent principles in and around Afghanistan have left their homes in little towns and big cities all across our country to serve us all. Jonn's treasured home was Cheyenne, Wyoming. He belonged to the Future Business Leaders of America, was a Wyoming Boys State delegate, lettered in academics, and played soccer. He graduated from East High School in 1999 and quickly joined the Army. He became a Ranger five months later and was based in Fort Benning, Georgia as a member of the 75th Ranger regiment. Jonn's promising future was accompanied by a sworn, sincere promise to serve . . . a promise this young man would never dream of breaking . . . a promise that led to this tragic loss. In a paper written for a high school class a few short years ago, Jonn discussed his plans for a long-term Army career. He said, ``I will be contributing to myself as well as for the defense of this country and for the betterment of the world.'' No one should doubt that Jonn Edmunds was ready and willing to join the fight against terrorism and to help seek justice for the evils our nation has endured since the September 11 attacks. His father Donn told reporters, ``I'm extremely proud of my son. He was doing what he wanted to do.'' I've called Jonn's family to express my grief at their loss. My prayers are with his father Donn and mother Mary, his brother Seth and sister Alyssa, Anne, his wife of less than a year, and his other family members and friends. I pray that the pain of their sorrows will be softened over time by sweet and loving memories. Despite their terrible loss, Jonn's family has told us all that their support for President Bush and Operation Enduring Freedom remains strong. When I think of Jonn and his family, I am humbled. Every American should be. And we all should be thankful for this gift of honor and dedication in the name of justice and freedom. God bless Jonn, his family and friends, and his comrades in arms. And God bless America.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this ill-thought- out amendment. The cost of sugar included in a $1.72 bag of candy is roughly 8 cents. Candy companies actually spend more money on the wrapper than they do on the sugar that goes into the candy. So how exactly is it that the sugar producers are ripping off consumers? It is simple: they are not. In fact, while domestic sugar prices have dropped dramatically in recent years, a 25 percent decrease since 1996, the price consumers are paying for sugar in the grocery store has increased 4 percent during that same time period. Producer prices for sugar are at a 22-year low and consumer prices for sugar are at a 20-year high. Now, why is that? Where is that money going? Well, let me tell my colleagues. The price for raw sugar has been reduced 14.8 percent, it has been reduced 28.8 percent for wholesale sugar, at the same time the prices for sugar for cereal have increased 4.3 percent and candy at 7.7 percent. So when I hear about all of those jobs lost in the candy industry, I am sorry that that has happened; but to try to lay the blame on sugar simply does not cut the mustard. The price of cookies has increased 8 percent, bakery products 8.5 percent, ice cream 13.7 percent. Even more telling is the fact that cereal has increased by over 4 percent, as I said earlier, and candy, cookies, and so on. So when we hear the argument of the Miller-Miller amendment that this program will equal savings to consumers, think again. It will not equal savings to consumers; it will simply hurt producers because they are the ones who continue to pay for the reductions in sugar. The reduction in current producer prices has historically stopped at the pockets of the manufacturer, with consumer prices increasing while the struggling sugar industry continues to suffer. I have beet farmers in Wyoming. They are great stewards of the land. There is no pollution due to sugar beet farming, and these sugar beet farmers would be very ill affected. I ask all my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record additional information on our sugar policy: Grocers Boost Retail Sugar Price to 20-Year High While Producer Prices Fall to 22-Year Low The price farmers receive for their sugar--the wholesale refined sugar price--has been running at about a 22-year low for most of the past years. Have consumers seen any benefit? None. In fact, consumer prices for sugar just hit a 20-year high. The big grocery chains not only failed to pass any of their savings on lower producer prices for sugar along to consumers. They did the opposite. They chose instead to increase their retail sugar prices, and their profits. According to USDA data, the grocery-store price of sugar rose to 44.3 cents per pound in July. That's the first time since April of 1981 that the U.S. retail price of sugar has reached 44 cents. And these grocers want this Congress to believe that knocking the producer price for sugar down even further would benefit consumers. How gullible do they think we are? Lower producer prices for sugar mean more American beet and cane farmers go out of business and more profits for grocery chains. But the numbers irrefutably show that lower producer prices for sugar do not mean lower prices for consumers.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, there are no words to describe the anguish we and all Americans feel on this day. Our innocence has been stolen as we discover our vulnerability to the acts of zealous madmen. President Bush reassured Americans last night that, while those who detest freedom may destroy brick and mortar and even take the lives of innocents, they can not destroy the American spirit. We can take comfort and confidence in our national resolve and depend on it to help us overcome this temporary setback. Clearly, we must gather the American spirit and rally around our Commander-in-Chief. We must support his efforts to make crystal clear the fact that the American people are united and resolute; that we will take a stand against attacks on our sovereignty; and that we will atone this grievous act. I am sure the entire membership of this body joins me in supporting the President in the crisis and in praying to God for guidance.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, currently over 20 percent of America's electricity is supplied by nuclear power, which requires roughly burning 50 million pounds of uranium as nuclear fuel each year. As our Nation's energy needs grow, so must all of our sources of energy in the future, including nuclear. Uranium, much like our current dependence on foreign oil, is increasingly produced outside the United States. Uranium domestically produced is currently 3 million pounds or just 6 percent of the Nation's nuclear fuel. Remember, 20 percent of our electricity is supplied by nuclear. The vast majority of that uranium that is produced is owned by foreign countries. At least the oil and gas end of the public lands, for the most part, is owned by domestic corporations. Over the last 5 years, the domestic uranium production industry has faced the loss of the uranium market due to government inventory sales, resulting in the decline of sales and income, market capitalization, and massive asset devaluation. In my home State of Wyoming, uranium suppliers over the past several years have been forced to reduce a healthy workforce from several thousand to just 250 people, all this in a State that has just under 480,000 total population. This has made a huge impact on my State. In December of 2000, the General Accounting Office reported that the sales of natural uranium transferred from DOE to the United States Enrichment Corporation created an oversupply and a subsequent drop in uranium prices. To balance this previous uranium dumping on the market, the Wilson-Cubin amendment would prohibit the transfer or sale of government uranium inventories through March 23, 2009. Subsequent to that, transfers or sales of up to 3 million pounds of uranium would be permitted per year. Only through this legislative action can we prevent the dire future that the industry is currently facing. If we decide to maintain the status quo, our domestic uranium industry could be dead in 3 years. I ask Members to vote for the Wilson-Cubin amendment.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of the Bono amendment. I want to speak, however, to the amendment that is coming up after this one, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard increase. Last year in my home State of Wyoming, registration of light trucks outnumbered passenger cars by about 2 to 1. While this statistic may be surprising to some of my colleagues, it is in no way surprising to me. Despite the many advantages that we enjoy living in Wyoming, its cold, harsh, long winters, long-distance traveling and often rugged terrain create additional safety and utility needs to such everyday events as traveling to a nearby town for business or for transporting one's children to soccer practice. SUVs, Suburbans and minivans have replaced the station wagon as the soccer mom's vehicle of choice, because these vehicles provide levels of safety, passenger room and utility that allow an active family to meet their needs. Wyoming's agriculture community also depends on light truck utility vehicles to accomplish the necessary work associated with farming and ranching. It should not take a farmer or a rancher to tell us we cannot haul a bail of hay in a Geo Metro. While that vehicle also has its place in the market, and I do not deny that, agriculture families simply have different needs. Thankfully, the auto industry constantly works to address these needs by building and marketing larger and safer and, yes, more fuel- efficient vehicles. After all, these vehicles are what consumers want to buy, and it only makes sense for the market to respond to that consumer demand. Increasing CAFE standards today would put automobile manufacturers at odds with consumers by forcing the auto industry to produce smaller and lighter vehicles. Such a requirement would not only translate into reduction of consumer choice, but would sacrifice the safety benefits that go along with larger vehicles. The National Research Council's report on CAFE standards released only yesterday stated that without a thought for a restructuring of the program, additional traffic fatalities would be the trade-off that we must incur. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Bono amendment and vote against the Boehlert amendment.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4. Division F of this bill is a product of the Committee on Resources. The previous speaker should know very well that he has spent his precious time misleading Members and misrepresenting what is actually in this bill. He should be ashamed. We have held many hearings on issues involving the role of the public lands on our domestic energy supplies. Our work has led us to include provisions in H.R. 4 which require studies and analyses of impediments to environmentally sound development of potential energy resources on and under public lands. Section 6102 requires an inventory of public lands for solar, wind and geothermal energy potential and for coal resources. The SAFE Act expands current law to cover renewable energy supplies and coal resources. We need to know exactly what is in our energy bank, what energy is available to us as a country. Subtitle A of title II mandates a 2-year extension of the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995, which has been extremely successful. The previous speaker said, What does the United States get out of this, zero, zilch, nada, when the gentleman knows from just the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995, we have over $5 billion in the bank as a result of only bonuses that were bid in the Gulf of Mexico. That does not count any royalties. $5 billion is far from zero, nada, zilch. If we continue the program started by President Clinton, which is a much smaller program than was signed into law by President Clinton, we will get $5, $10, $15, $20 billion in bonuses that we otherwise will not get because it is simply too expensive to risk that kind of money to drill in the deep water. This is a good bill. I will refer to the other complaints about the bill later.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, last year I introduced legislation similar to H.R. 496 that began a process to force the Federal Communications Commission to administer small and mid-size telecommunications companies differently during its regulatory deliberations. This bill passed by unanimous voice vote in the House and in the Committee on Commerce. This legislation does nothing more than clear out the regulatory underbrush that makes it difficult for small and mid-size companies to offer the same types of services that their sometimes larger competitors do. Let me give my colleagues an idea of the companies in my State that we are talking about. H.R. 496 helps companies like small telephone carriers in Chugwater, Wyoming, Chugwater Telephone Company, which has 300 access lines. All West Communications has 363 access lines. Project Telephone Company, 219. Union Telephone, 1,600. It is one of the larger. These are the types of carriers that are in my district, and my colleagues will find these types of carriers all over the country. These are the carriers we are trying to help not have to fill out the extraordinarily complex and expensive forms that the larger companies, AT&T and some of the larger companies, have to do. The intention was then and it continues to be my intention today to lessen the regulatory burdens on small and mid-sized telephone companies so that they can streamline their business plans and, hopefully, shift some more of their resources to deploying advanced telecommunication services to all areas of the country, including rural areas. With the help of many of my colleagues, and I sincerely thank them, especially the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the subcommittee chairman; the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering); the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett); the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon); and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent). I really appreciate the help that they have given in getting this bill to this point. The FCC, to its credit, has made some headway in this area, and I do commend them for it, however, they cannot seem to get the ball across the goal line. In 1999, the Commission initiated a process to reduce accounting requirements for small telecommunications companies; and although we have seen some incremental steps and public meetings held, we have yet to see a final product. I said it last year and I will restate it, because I think it is very important, the Commission's time line on finalizing the accounting and reporting standards has changed like the Wyoming winds. My bill does nothing more than what the Commission already says it is attempting to do. One of the concerns I heard last year was that the bill would somehow make it impossible to collect sufficient cost data to determine its high-cost support mechanisms. My colleagues all know that I represent the most rural State in the country and, as such, Federal universal service support is absolutely critical. I would never do anything to compromise universal service. In a letter written to me last month by the president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, or NARUC, and the Chair of the NARUC Telecom Committee made it clear that nothing in this bill, and I quote, ``precludes States from access to information needed in State proceedings through data requests or similar methods. We understand that this bill does not affect underlying accounting rules nor prohibitions against cross subsidies.'' Let me be clear. This bill does nothing to take away any authority from the FCC in requesting necessary paperwork that it needs to do its job. Mr. Speaker, I want to be brief, which I guess is already too late, so I will summarize the changes and improvements that we have made to the bill. Last year, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I worked on several modifications to the bill, a majority of which were incorporated into it as it passed the House. This year we have continued our dialogue and have come together on even more changes and clarifications. First, I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his concern for rural telecommunications customers and the rates that they pay. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to work out language that will guaranty that under section 286 of the bill, which is the pricing flexibility section, that rural customers' rates will not increase when competition forces prices to go down in one area only to be shifted to another area to make up the difference. We have tightened the definition of what a 2 percent carrier is. There is now language in section 284 where we have installed a bulletproof fire wall to protect against possible gaming of the system when companies elect to choose tariff flexibility. Finally, we have reworked the merger section. And I want it to be clear that the merger review language only applies to those companies that remain 2 percent companies after the acquisition of another company. Mr. Speaker, I cannot overstate the importance of this bill for rural areas like Wyoming. I appreciate all of the help that I have had in getting it this far.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of introducing the Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act of 2001. As many will recall, last year I introduced H.R. 3850, the Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act of 2000, to lessen the burdens on small and mid-sized telephone companies and allow them to shift more of their resources to deploying advanced telecommunication 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% 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 less profitable than 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 (FCC) 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've actually made it more difficult. The reason is that the FCC more often than not uses a one size fits all model in regulating all Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). This type of model may be fine for the big companies than have the ability to hire legions of attorneys and staff to interpret and ensure compliance with the 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 phone company installing a DSLAM or other facilities to provide high speed Internet access to customers in rural areas. Just to give you an example of how burdensome these reports are, the Commission's instructions for filling them out are over 900 pages long. More often than not, the FCC does not refer to--and in some cases simply ignores--the data filed by mid-size companies. Let me be very clear, however, that the bill does nothing to restrict the Commission's authority to request this or any other data at any time. 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. In fact, during our hearing on this legislation, the FCC told the Telecommunications Subcommittee that it may be issuing a notice of proposed rule-making 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's time those obligations are met and this legislation would solidify what the FCC has promised to do for a long time. In addition, I want everyone to know that I 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. Some of the changes that were adopted during the Commerce Committee'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. Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the record what this legislation does and what it does not do. The bill does not reopen the 1996 Act; it does not fully deregulate two percent carriers; and it does not impact regulations dealing with large local carriers. It would, however, be the first free-standing legislation that would modernize regulations of two percent carriers; it would accelerate competition in many small to mid-size markets; accelerate the deployment of new, advanced telecommunication services; and benefit consumers by allowing two percent carriers to redirect resources to network investment and new services. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical for rural areas across the country where these small telephone companies operate. Without this bill, these two 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--a share of the new economy. I want to remind members of the House that H.R. 3850 passed with wide-spread support during the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, the Senate wasn't able to bring up the bill due to time constraints, but I am confident that we will continue to garner support for this common sense regulatory initiative. In closing I want to thank the original cosponsors of the bill: Reps. Bart Gordon, Chip Pickering, and Tom Barrett. The cosponsors and I acknowledged that there may be room for improvement and welcome refinements. As I acknowledged earlier, last year I was very receptive to concerns that individual members and industry representatives brought to my attention. My office has always had an open door policy and that will never change. We look forward to working with incumbent and competitive interests so that in the end the ultimate goal will be realized: improved access to advanced telecommunications and common sense regulatory changes that lessen the burdens on small and mid-size telecommunications providers. We collectively acknowledge the new leadership at the Federal Communications Commission and look forward to their thoughtful suggestions as well as their own internal changes that will hopefully improve the regulatory environment that these small and mid-size companies operate under. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the Commerce Committee for their help in moving this bill last year and ask my colleagues to once again unanimously support this very important piece of legislation.