Barbara Cubin

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to state that I certainly appreciate the help of the ranking minority member in adding the other additions to the bill that were originally left out. I, too, feel it was more of an oversight, that it is very important and certainly does improve the quality of the bill. General Leave

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 709, as amended.

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

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 709, a bill to amend the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. This law is a codification of cooperative federalism. It expressly authorizes the practice of the U.S. Geological Survey using a small but significant portion of its geologic mapping budget to find mapping projects of priority to the State geologic surveys on a 50-50 matching share basis. In this manner, the act promotes the basic scientific endeavor the mapping the bedrock geology and superficial deposits of this country. Most people do not realize the importance of geologic mapping. It meets society's needs for geologic hazards identification and abatement, for groundwater protection, land use planning and mineral resources identification. H.R. 709 reauthorizes this cooperative program for three years, 1998 to the year 2000. It establishes thresholds for the sharing of funds between Federal, State and academic components. In general, the administration has agreed to dedicate not less than 20 percent of the budget line for geologic mapping to the cooperative State map component and not less than 2 percent to the education mapping or ed map component. The ed map function is to ensure small amounts of granted moneys will be available for student training in fields of mapping skills. This bill was amended in subcommittee by my friends, the ranking member, the gentleman from Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo] and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands [Ms. Christian-Green]. The sum of those amendments clarified the definition of State to include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that the matching funds requirement is important because it assures greater scrutiny of budget requests than would otherwise be the case. The various State legislatures making funds available for their geological surveys, as well as the committee and the Congress overseeing Federal budgets, must be satisfied the mapping program brings useful results. I believe the program is indeed an important part of the U.S. Geological Survey's mission, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 709. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].

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

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the resolution on the President's findings on family planning and I ask that my colleagues support the Smith-Hyde bill. It was stated earlier, and I completely agree, that in the past international family planning has been a bipartisan issue. I suggest to my colleagues that it absolutely remains that way today. I am pro-life but I am also very much in favor of sex education and birth control and family planning. In my opinion, it is a contradiction to be opposed to abortions and yet be opposed to birth control and family planning, and that is why I support the Smith-Hyde bill. The Smith-Hyde bill supports international family planning programs in foreign countries, but not like the President's proposal to promote abortions. I do not believe abortion is nor should it ever be promoted as a method of family planning or for birth control. The Smith-Hyde bill is a bipartisan bill, an alternative approach to the President's shortsighted and irresponsible plan, and it actually increases funding for international family planning even beyond the President's resolution. Now, let me repeat that. The Smith-Hyde bill will spend more money for international family planning than the President's proposal, and the Smith-Hyde bill will not allow any public money to be spent for abortions. There are many in this Chamber like me who support family planning programs. This debate is simply not about family planning, but it is a debate about abortion being used as a method of family planning or birth control. As I said, I am strongly pro-life and I believe that abortion is not acceptable for purposes of sex selection, birth control, or convenience. Frankly, people must begin accepting responsibility for their actions, both domestically and overseas. That is why we must have an honest debate about the use of contraceptives and sex education as responsible methods of family planning. It is time to take the issue of abortion out of the family planning debate. The resolution on the President's finding ignores this Congress' desire to keep pro-life safeguards in place when providing international family planning funds. Let us send a clear message to the President that we do not want to send taxpayers' money to foreign countries to fund abortions. I urge my colleagues to vote to permit a rule on a Smith-Oberstar vote and against the resolution supporting the President's finding.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, Jackson Hole, WY, is one of the most beautiful and unique areas of our Nation. Over 3 million visitors per year come to hike, camp, ski, and sightsee amidst the grandeur of the Teton Range and the winding Snake River in Grand Teton National Park and the greater Yellowstone area beyond. Many wildlife species such as moose, bear, eagles, and trumpeter swan make the valley their home, while the largest elk herd in the lower 48 States annually migrates through it to winter on the wildlife refuge at its southern end. While much of the valley is protected for perpetuity in Federal ownership, some of the most valuable wildlife habitat, migration routes, and scenic vistas remain in private ownership as working ranch lands. Conservation groups in Jackson Hole and around the country have worked for years to help protect these ranches from development through the use of scenic easements and other means and are to be commended for their good work. Unfortunately, we now face a situation where some of the most scenic and valuable ranch lands adjacent to the park could be forced to sell and subdivide. In 1950, the law establishing Grand Teton National Park allowed local grazing permittees whose livestock had historically used the new park lands for summer range to continue that grazing for the life of the permittees' designated heirs. As a result, 14,000 acres were set aside, irrigated, and fenced for the benefit of these permit holders who, in turn, paid grazing fees at the required rate. Since that time, development pressures have grown enormously. One of these permit holders has already sold his ranch, which became a major subdivision of middle-class houses. Meanwhile real estate prices continue to skyrocket and intense development pressure has focused on the remaining permit holders. In June of last year, a dear friend of mine, Mary Mead, died in a tragic accident doing what she loved best: working on her cherished ranch. Mary was the designated heir to her family's grazing permit on the Grand Teton National Park. Legally, with Mary's death, the grazing permit would be terminated. However, without this permit the Mead family, along with former U.S. Senator Cliff Hansen--father of Mary-- would no longer be able to maintain their cattle operation and ranch. Without the park's summer range on which all of their cattle depend, the family would almost certainly be forced to sell their livestock and the ranch, which would in all likelihood be immediately subdivided and developed. This tragic loss would not only destroy open space and scenic vistas but could also adversely impact wildlife habitat and migration patterns as well as the integrity of the park's greater ecosystem. For these reasons, the family has requested consideration of an extension of their grazing privilege. In return, they are committed to working with the National Park Service and others to actively explore options to preserve their ranch lands. I, too, am dedicated to maintaining the highly valuable open space and ranching culture in this vicinity of the park. An extension of grazing privileges would allow time to explore a network of relationships and avoid the indiscriminate development that could occur on these pastoral lands. The legislation I am introducing today, written in cooperation with Superintendent Jack Neckles of Grand Teton National Park, authorizes a study which will determine the significance of ranching and the pastoral character of the land, including open vistas, wildlife habitat, and other public benefits. It calls for the Secretary of the Interior to work with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Governor of Wyoming, the Tenon County commissioners, affected land owners, and other interested members of the public, to submit a report to Congress that contains the findings of the study. With the participation of the interested parties I am hopeful that the study will find open spaces to be an essential dynamic for wildlife in and around the greater Grand Teton National Park system and for all of us who live and desire the wide open spaces. I commend this legislation to my colleagues and urge their support for its prompt enactment.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to ensure that the name of Devils Tower National Monument remain unchanged. I introduced this bill during the 104th Congress and since that time I have received numerous positive comments and support from constituents from around the Devils Tower area. In fact, my office has received a petition with an estimated 2,000 names from not only those in and around the monument but from all over the country of those concerned with changing the name of this beloved landmark. For more than 100 years the name ``Devils Tower'' has applied to the geologic formation in my State and has since appeared as such on maps in Wyoming and nationwide. The name was given to the monument by a scientific team, directed by Gen. George Custer and escorted by Col. Richard Dodge in 1875, and is universally recognized as an important landmark that distinguishes the northeastern part of Wyoming. The monument has brought a vital tourist industry to that portion of the State due to its unique character and structure. According to a July 17, 1996, release by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, the National Park Service has advised the board that several native American groups do intend to submit a proposal, if one has not already been submitted, to change the name of the monument. On September 4-6, 1996, the superintendent of Devils Tower, Deborah Liggett, gave a presentation at the Western States Geographic Names Conference in Salt Lake City, UT, giving the native American perspective. During a July 1, 1996, meeting with Ms. Liggett she gave me her assurance that she had no intention of proposing a name change for the monument, and made it clear to me that no one else was in the process of initiating a name change. The legislation that I am introducing today on behalf of the State of Wyoming will ensure that the name of the geological formation, historically known as Devils Tower, remain unchanged. It is my belief and the belief of hundreds of people from around the region that a name change will only bring economic hardship to the tourist industry in the area. I cannot and will not stand idly by and allow that to happen. I commend this bill to my colleagues and urge them to join me in cosponsoring it.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, Jackson Hole, WY is one of the most beautiful and unique areas of our Nation. Over 3 million visitors per year come to hike, camp, ski, and sightsee amidst the grandeur of the Teton range and the winding Snake River in Grand Teton National Park and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem beyond. Many wildlife species such as moose, bear, eagles, and trumpeter swan make the valley their home, while the largest elk herd in the lower 48 States annually migrates through it to winter on the wildlife refuge at its southern end. While much of the valley is protected for perpetuity in Federal ownership, some of the most valuable wildlife habitat, migration routes, and scenic vistas remain in private ownership as working ranchlands. Conservation groups in Jackson Hole and around the country have worked for years to help protect these ranches from development, through the use of scenic easements and other means, and are to be commended for their good work. Unfortunately, we now face a situation where some of the most scenic and valuable ranchlands adjacent to the park could be forced to sell and subdivide. In 1950 the law establishing Grand Teton National Park allowed local grazing permittees whose livestock had historically used the new park lands for summer range to continue that grazing for the life of the permittees' designed heirs. As a result, 14,000 acres were set aside, irrigated, and fenced by the part for the benefit of these permit holders who, in turn, paid grazing fees at the required rate. Since that time, development pressures have grown enormously. One of those permit holders has already sold his ranch, which became a major subdivision of middle-class houses. Meanwhile real estate prices continue to skyrocket, and intense development pressure has focused on the remaining permit holders. In June of this year, a dear friend of mine, Mary Mead, died in a tragic accident doing what she loved best: working on her cherished ranch. Mary was the designated heir to her family's grazing permit on the Grand Teton National Park. Legally, with Mary's death the grazing permit would be terminated. However, without this permit the Mead family, along with former U.S. Senator Cliff Hansen--father of Mary-- would no longer be able to maintain their cattle operation and ranch. Without the park's summer range on which all of their cattle depend, the family would almost certainly be forced to sell their livestock and the ranch, which would in all likelihood be immediately subdivided and developed. This tragic loss would not only destroy open space and scenic vistas but could also adversely impact wildlife habitat and migration patterns as well as the integrity of the park's greater ecosystem. For these reasons, the family has requested consideration of an extension of their grazing privilege. In return, they are committed to working with the National Park Service and others to actively exploring options to preserve their ranchlands. I, too, am dedicated to maintaining the highly valuable open space and ranching culture in this vicinity of the park. An extension of grazing privileges would allow time to explore a network of relationships and avoid the indiscriminate development that will occur on these pastoral lands. I am eager to work during the remainder of this year and in the 105th Congress with my colleagues both here in the House and the Senate, along with Grand Teton National Park Superintendent Jack Neckles and others in the local community, to bring a resolution to this unique situation.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to ensure that the name of Devils Tower National Monument remain unchanged. For more than 100 years the name Devils Tower has applied to the geologic formation in my State and has since appeared as such on maps in Wyoming and nationwide. The name was given to the monument by a scientific team, directed by Gen. George Custer and escorted by Col. Richard Dodge in 1875, and is universally recognized as an important landmark that distinguishes the northeastern part of Wyoming. The monument has brought a vital tourist industry to that portion of the State due to its unique character and structure. According to a July 17, 1996, release by the United States Board on Geographic Names, the National Park Service has advised the board that several Native American groups do intend to submit a proposal, if one has not already been submitted, to change the name of the monument. On September 4-6, 1996, the Superintendent of Devils Tower, Deborah Liggett, is scheduled to give a presentation at the Western States Geographic Names Conference in Salt Lake City, UT, giving the Native American perspective. During a July 1, 1996, meeting with Ms. Liggett she gave me her assurance that she had no intention of proposing a name change for the monument, and made it clear to me that on one else was in the process of initiating a name change. The legislation that I am introducing today on behalf of the State of Wyoming will ensure that the name of the geological formation, historically known as Devils Tower, remain unchanged. It is my belief and the belief of hundreds of people from around the region that the name change will only bring economic hardship to the tourist industry in the area. I cannot and will not stand idly by and allow that to happen. I commend this bill to my colleagues and urge them to join me in cosponsoring it.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker. I support the chairman's substitute to H.R. 3579, which will transfer property known as Ranch A to the State of Wyoming. The changes that are incorporated in this amendment directly reflect those changes brought to me by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during subcommittee hearings on this bill. This bill is very important to Wyoming and anyone who enjoys the beauty of open spaces and historical buildings. Under the management of the Federal Government, the buildings at Ranch A have become run down and fallen into disrepair. It is time for the State of Wyoming to become involved in the management of the buildings and the class one trout stream that runs through the property. The State management of the stream will continue to be the same quality that it has been for the past 16 years. John Twiss, Superintendent of Black Hills National Forest, acknowledged the fact that the Forest Service could not afford to put any money toward restoration of the ranch's historical buildings. The Forest Service should not be in the business of restoring historical sites and spending much needed resources maintaining these buildings. The cost for the restoration is projected to be about $2 million. The State of Wyoming is looking forward to and is committed to restoring and even making marked improvements to the facility by creating lodging for visitor groups and maintaining the historic significance of the ranch. Private donations brought about by the efforts of the Ranch A Restoration Foundation will give the State of Wyoming the ability to do restoration on the buildings without burdening the taxpayers of my home State. As we all know, during this time of budget restraints and fiscal conservatism, it is not a good time for agencies like the Forest Service to begin acquiring property. These agencies already have difficulty managing what they have. The State of Wyoming is in a better position to manage the facility properly and will take in private donations to effectively do so. The ability of the Ranch A Restoration Foundation to acquire donations will increase when the facility is turned over to the State. Even though the South Dakota School of Mines, and the State of South Dakota as a whole, will continue to use the facility they have not been committed to giving financial backing toward the restoration or acquisition of Ranch A. In fact, in a May 1995 letter, South Dakota Governor Bill Janklow acknowledged he had no desire to purchase the Ranch A facility and the South Dakota Game and Fish Department reached that same conclusion. Since the facility is currently scheduled for disposal by the General Service Administration in the next few months, it is my hope this non- controversial piece of legislation will move quickly through the House, along with a companion bill introduced in the Senate by Craig Thomas, to assure a expeditious transfer of this property to the State of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, it is my desire and it is the State of Wyoming's desire to ensure that Ranch A is kept whole and in public ownership; this legislation does just that. H.R. 3579, with the USFWS amendments, ensures access to Forest Service land through the property and protects the blue ribbon fishery that the State of Wyoming holds very close to its heart. Once again, thank you Mr. Speaker. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3579 and look forward to the passage of this legislation.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in opposition to this amendment. This amendment, some of the language in it says: Gender equality policies and practices. The program provides teacher training to encourage gender equity. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, and I am speaking here today on behalf of our children, this program was zeroed out in fiscal year 1996, as we know, The fact remains that if we do not reach a balanced budget, if we do not make the appropriate steps to balance the budget, then none of our children, boys and girls, will have a future, will be able to preserve the American dream. We know a child born today owes $187,000 only in interest on the national debt. If I had started a business the day Jesus Christ was born and spent $1 million a day every day from then through today, I would still not have lost my first $1 trillion, and we are $5 trillion in debt. Mr. Chairman, this is not a legacy that we can send onto our children, whether they are male or female. I very much resent the opportunity not to be able to compete with anyone, man or woman, on a level playing field. I do not think that women feel that they are in a position where they cannot compete. I think so much of this discussion is a generational problem. The young women that I know believe that they can compete, and that they can do equally as well in this society. Yes, I freely admit in the years that I was in college and the years when I was younger, I agree there was discrimination, and it was harder for women to make their way in the professional world. But I believe times have changed, and I also believe that we need to cut programs that are not as effective as they should be, because we have to spend our money in wise use in this budget. We need to do that for the sake of our children. I am very determined. I will not be a party to leaving a country to my children or other people's children that is not in as good a condition as the country that I received from my parents. We need to save the American dream for them, and we cannot do that if we continue to spend money on irresponsible programs. I ask on behalf of the children and families in America that we defeat this amendment and get on with our business.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here this evening to speak on this issue. I think that every time that there is a problem in our country, we pull together as Americans. We have won two world wars, we have put a man on the Moon. We have the best health care system in the world. When we need a neighbor, when we need a friend, Americans are always there to pull together to help one another. I am grateful that we have the opportunity to speak on this issue tonight. We will not accept, in no way, this sort of behavior. I think we should use every effort and every resource we have to try to find the people that are responsible for this and bring them to justice. Every cloud has a silver lining, and the conciliatory tone of this Congress this evening is heartwarming, and I hope the people across the country can feel the sentiment that we feel here this evening.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, you all have seen the Nike ad with the words ``Just do it?'' That should be the slogan for the Democrats in Congress. They talk about a balanced budget. I say: Just do it. They talk about welfare reform. I say: Just do it. They talk about tax relief. I say: just do it. They talk about an end to big government. I say: just do it. Talk is cheap, and nowhere is talk cheaper than in Washington. We've had enough talk, enough rhetoric, enough promises. It's time to stop talking about change and start making it happen. What we need is action, and we need it now. We need to stop all this wasteful spending--now. We need to balance the budget--now. We need to end welfare as we know it--now. We need tax relief for the forgotten American worker--now. Did you ever wonder why Washington waits to solve a problem until it becomes a crisis? The American people should never accept second-best from their government or their elected leaders. They deserve better. And why not? America's best days are still ahead. In the America of the 21st century, no one needs to be left behind. If we stop all this tax and spend behavior, we will end the Clinton crunch that as contributed to our national anxiety. And if we stop all this spending, we will end the tax trap caused by misguided Washington bureaucrats who want to spend more of your money, leaving you with less. Let me be as clear as I can. Americans have a right to earn more, keep more, and do more. That's how we restore the American dream. Working together in a spirit of respect, with the right economic policy and incentives, our nation's potential is unlimited. We are Americans. There is nothing we cannot achieve. The best is yet to come. I say, just do it.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment which would reduce funding to the Animal Damage Control Program. Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is at the very best uninformed, and possibly at the worst, mean-spirited. When we talk about predators, we are not talking only about coyotes, we are talking about the wolf which has been introduced into Wyoming, into my State, which is an endangered species. The grizzly bear is an endangered species. Eagles and hawks, many of them are endangered species. We do not have any right or any will to kill these predators, and we cannot legally do that to protect our livestock. I believe in predator control, but when an endangered animal, an endangered species kills some livestock, the only way that the owner of that livestock can get compensated is through the Animal Damage Control Program. I would suggest that, if the gentleman who offered the amendment had a dog that was worth $10,000 and this dog was in his very own yard, and there are bulls that are worth that much, much more than $10,000, but this dog was in its very own yard and my dog went over and killed his dog, then he would say that I ought to be responsible to pay him back for the value of his dog. This is all this predator control program does. If a species or if a predator, including an endangered species, kills a cow, a bull, a sheep, whatever, all we are asking is that a portion, a very small portion of the value of that livestock be given back to the owner of the livestock. That is what we are asking. This is not a subsidy. It is merely paying someone for a small portion of what is rightfully theirs. The animal loss in the livestock industry is enormous, as the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley] stated earlier. Aside from the livestock issues, there have also been wildlife losses, not just in Wyoming but in Oregon and across the western United States, due to predation. It is the livestock producers who, by controlling predators, who keep the burgeoning numbers of coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, and brown bears down, who have provided the most protection for wildlife, which are preyed upon by these same destructive animals. The Animal Defense Control Program is the last line of defense for the wildlife that we enjoy and that everyone wants to preserve in our State. If Members have any real interest in protecting wildlife, they will vote against this amendment, because the ranchers and the livestock growers are the ones who are helping control the predators, and they need the animal control money to enable them to do that.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation which will transfer property known as Ranch A to the State of Wyoming. The facility, constructed by the Annenberg family for $600,000 in the 1930's, was acquired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] in the 1960's for a fish genetics research facility. The USFWS research operations were terminated in 1980; fisheries development work continued until 1986. The agency then entered into agreements for the use of various facilities by Wyoming Game and Fish production, South Dakota School of Mines for a training seminar site, and Inya Kara Foundation for a troubled youths group home. The Wyoming Game and Fish discontinued their fish production at Ranch A in the early part of the summer of 1995. Currently, USFWS has no operational activities at Ranch A and it is unlikely that USFWS will have use for the facilities in the foreseeable future. The Region 6 USFWS Director has recommended that the agency transfer ownership of Ranch A. The concept of a transfer is endorsed by the State of Wyoming, Wyoming Gov. Jim Geringer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Ranch A Restoration Foundation, and State Representative Marlene Simons. Representative Simons has been a driving force for the foundation since the onset of this issue. It has been because of her hard work that the reality of a transfer of this property may come to fruition. The bill, as introduced, will direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey Ranch A to the State of Wyoming without reimbursement, all right, title, and interest of the United States. Ranch A consists of approximately 680 acres of land and includes property, buildings, artworks, historic light fixtures, wildlife mounts, draperies, rugs, and furniture. The legislation assures the State of Wyoming will provide access to the property for institutions of higher education that will benefit not only Wyoming, but neighboring States as well.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I have been misled. I thought that Members of Congress were supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard. I thought that they were supposed to conduct themselves in a respectful manner. I was even naive enough to believe that male Members of Congress were supposed to treat females and males equally. Boy, was I mistaken. Yesterday, two Democrat Congressmen insulted two hard-working and dedicated female staffers. Not because of their job performance, not because of anything they said, and not because of anything they did. The only reason these staffers were insulted was because their husbands were prominent public servants. Mr. Speaker, at a time when we are supposed to be honoring our mothers for their selfless dedication and hard work, these two Democrat Congressmen have set new lows in the respect for women. They should apologize for their insulting remarks.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, today we will end months of intense negotiation with the administration on the omnibus appropriations bill, which provides funding for the Departments of Commerce, Interior, State, Labor, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans, and Health and Human Services. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has achieved historic savings in the Federal budget. We have saved taxpayers $43 billion, resulting in the lowest projected deficit in 14 years and the single largest cut in government since World War II. Please remember, the President does not spend one penny; the Congress spends the money, and this Republican Congress is responsible for cutting the deficit $43 billion, keeping our word, and changing the way government is done in Washington.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a very serious issue in our country today--crime. With all of the freedoms we enjoy in our country today, if we as citizens do not have confidence in our judicial system to keep the criminals off the streets, we do not have total freedom, because we will always be looking over our shoulders or will be too scared to participate in social activities outside of our homes. Many, many people feel this way today. And who can blame them--when they read stories about Clinton-appointed judges who side with the criminals and blame society. Like the Clinton judge who insisted that the killer had ``socially redeeming values,'' even though he stabbed his victim repeatedly, shot him twice, and laughed at the victim while he pled for his life. This is wrong. Our justice system should protect the rights of crime victims--not invent newer and more expansive rights for criminal defendants. Our justice system should distribute justice, not liberal social experiments that coddle criminals. We need to appoint judges who represent and understand America's values.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, while President Clinton claims that he is doing everything he can do to fight the war on drugs, I would like to respectfully give some examples refuting that claim. If President Clinton was doing all he could, he would not have issued the executive order reducing military interdiction efforts including the elimination of 1,000 antidrug positions. If President Clinton was doing all he could, he would not have cut interdiction funds for the Customs Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration. If he was doing all he could, he would not have shortened minimum mandatory sentences for drug traffickers. If President Clinton was doing all he could, he would not have disbanded Operation Snow Cap which helps foreign countries with DEA agents in cocaine-producing countries. If he was doing all he could, he would not have dropped the drug issue from the top to the bottom of the 229 priorities of the National Security Council. Obviously, the President is not doing all that he can do, even though it was his promise when he ran for President.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton and his administration have turned a blind eye to the alarming rise in youth drug abuse. Marijuana use among 12- to 17-year-olds rose from 1.6 million in 1992 to 2.9 million in 1994. Between 1992 and 1994 the number of juveniles testing positive for marijuana more than doubled across the country in cities like Birmingham, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Portland, St. Louis, and San Francisco. What was President Clinton doing during that time? Less than 1 month after he took office, in February 1993, he cut the staff at the office of drug control policy by 83 percent. Then he eliminated drug testing for the White House staff. This administration has gone from just say no to just say nothing and it has got to change to save our young people.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, later today we will take up H.R. 994, the Small Business Growth and Administrative Accountability Act. H.R. 994 will improve the Federal regulatory system and is the first step toward ending the Clinton crunch. For too long small businesses have been subjected to a flood of regulation and compliance costs. It is estimated that for the smallest of businesses--those with only one to four employees--the regulatory costs per employee are over $30,000. It is no wonder that so many people today feel that the entrepreneurial spirit is being choked by Washington taxes, Washington regulation, and Washington interference. Today we have the chance to do something about this problem. Today we can send a message to small business owners and those who dream one day of owning their own business. Let's pass H.R. 994 and fix the burdensome regulatory system and let small businesses do what they do best: create jobs.

Mrs. CUBIN

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I do have to take exception with the previous speaker. As it was pointed out earlier, there were 19 hearings held in order to put this bill together, so there was plenty of input, there was plenty of negotiation. This is a result of hours and hours of tough negotiations. As far as taking the safety net out from under American farmers, there are no better producers in the world than American farmers. What the role of the United States should be is to create a level playing field so that our producers can compete. Then they should see that the regulations for that level playing field are enforced. American farmers can compete every time. While this bill may not be perfect, it is a complete package. To attack or separate out one program is to threaten the cohesive hold of the negotiated package. This is a negotiated package. If the bill is ripped apart, there will be fewer benefits than if the complete package is adopted. I do not know of any person involved in agriculture that wants to remain under the thumb of the Federal Government. Again, what the Federal Government's role should be is to see that our agriculture producers are allowed to compete on a level playing field. Let me give an example. The sugar program is part of this bill. It has been greatly reformed, and yet it still remains under attack. The loss of the reformed sugar program will devastate the domestic industry. The domestic industry has taken part in these negotiations. They have given everything they can give and still try to keep this industry alive. There is nothing more that they can give. I commend the chairman and the committee for their work on this, and I urge that everyone vote in favor of the entire package and against the amendments. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I wish to clarify what the gentlewoman just mentioned who just spoke and the colleague from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy, felt that his word had been challenged. I agree with the gentleman. One, the only thing that I agree with the gentlewoman is this is not a perfect bill, period. A negotiated package: I do not know who they negotiated with, because I was not a party. Any member of the minority was not a party. So I do not know who they negotiated with. I will state here and now that there was no hearing on the introduced bill which we are discussing now, no hearings. Now, they rambled all over the United States prior to the session, but basically all of that was lost because of this contract business that we wasted all of last year on. So the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] was correct, and I back him. There was no hearing at all on the introduced bill. It was a negotiated package? I do not know who they negotiated with, unless it was the majority with their leadership.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I have to go back to the remarks of the gentlewoman from Ohio when she said this is an argument between multinational corporations and small farmers, and she is exactly correct. This is like David versus Goliath. The only people that are worried about doing away with this program are those people who make the biggest profit off of sugar. The producers make the least profit of anyone along the line when it comes to sugar. There is something that also has to be made very clear. We as Members of Congress have asked everyone in this country to do their part in balancing the Federal deficit, and these sugar beet farmers have given and given and given until it hurts. They are willing to do their part, but we cannot put them out of business by doing away with this program. The sugar program operates at no net cost to the Federal Government. It is not a subsidy. It provides money to the Government Treasury actually, and under the reform program it provides even more money to the Federal program. I urge you to vote against the amendment and for the bill.