George Radanovich

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, today, April 23rd, 1997, the House of Representatives commemorates a bleak chapter in world history: the Armenian genocide of 1915-1923. To overlook or deny its existence is not only irresponsible, but also provides incentive to despots who have it within their evil designs to commit similar atrocities. Civilization and peaceful nations, like the United States, can ill afford failures of justice, let alone tolerate breakdowns of the magnitude of the Armenian genocide. On March 21, 1997, I introduced, along with Rep. David Bonior, H. Con. Res. 55, the Armenian genocide Resolution. This measure honors the memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide. As with similar resolutions in the past, this measure enjoys widespread bipartisan support. I believe the time has long since passed for all governments to publicly acknowledge and rebuke this fatal chapter in the history of human events. Mr. Speaker, the 1.5 million Armenians who lost their lives during the genocide deserve our utmost respect. The highest honor this House can bestow on the victims is to secure a formal recognition from the Turkish government that the genocide indeed occurred. It is for their honor that we must wage this principled fight.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, April 16, 1997, President Clinton notified Congress that he will be invoking the national security waiver clause in the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, therefore resuming United States aid to Turkey despite that country's immoral blockade of humanitarian assistance to Armenia. This course marks a continued failure by the administration to grasp the deep distress Armenia and its people are suffering as a result of Turkey's cruel 4- year blockade. There is neither grounds for Turkey's blockade of Armenia, nor any overriding policy objective cited by the administration which legitimizes this injustice. Recently, I was honored to visit Armenia. I know first-hand of the courageous efforts of Armenia's leaders to move forward with market reforms and policies designed to foster political and economic integration with Western institutions and economies. I am committed to encouraging this process, and I believe it is disgraceful that the administration turns a blind-eye to policies that suffocate a land so rich in potential. The Clinton administration has correctly articulated the U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Caucasus region are stability, peace, democracy and economic prosperity. Unfortunately, with yesterday's waiver, the administration demonstrated its inability to recognize the means for achieving these ends. By assisting in the enforcement of this blockade, President Clinton has sentenced Armenia and her people to another painful year.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, Americans should keep more of their own money. They should keep more so that they can invest in their children's future, or purchase a home, or start a small business. Yesterday, the Tax Foundation--as it has done for the past 25 years-- announced that the average American will have to work 128 days for the Federal Government before he or she can begin to work for themselves and their families; 128 days, Mr. Speaker. That means that they still have 3\1/2\ weeks to go before May 9--the day they stop working for the Government. A lot of folks talk about the different ways to achieve tax reform or tax simplification--many of which I support. But it seems to me that the best thing for the American people is to just give it back. Instead of new programs and new bureaucracies, give back to the American people some of their hard earned dollars. This is not a new idea at all. John Kennedy did it in 1962, and so did Ronald Reagan in 1981. It is not a difficult concept. When you give back to the American people what already belongs to them, they reward the economy by investing and spending more. This is easy, Mr. Speaker. American families deserve tax relief. Support House Resolution 109.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I was unable to attend the vote on the floor of the House of Representatives on H.R. 1003, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act, on April 10, 1997. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted in support of the measure, as I believe that American taxpayers should not be required to subsidize the practice of euthanasia, that is, assisted suicide. The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments for two cases concerning the constitutionality of euthanasia. One case is 95-1858, Vacco v. Quill, and the other one is 96-110, Washington v. Glucksberg. Both are pending a decision. H.R. 1003, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act, is a necessary measure to protect the Federal Government from potentially having to provide Federal funds, under the guise of health care, to be used for euthanasia.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Clovis Unified School District [CUSD]. In a Joint Powers Agreement, CUSD and Fresno Unified School District [FUSD], will open the Center for Advanced Research and Technology in Clovis, CA [CART]. An extended branch of the educational system in Clovis, CART will allow students in the community to adequately prepare for the technological challenges of the future. Scheduled to open in the fall of 1999, CART pilot programs have been slated to begin in fall 1997. CART was made possible by a combination of grants and a partnership between local businesses and the educational departments of the community. As a center striving to meet the employment needs of the community and adequately prepare students to take advantage of postsecondary options, the course work presented at the center will be responsive to the changes in the industry. CART will offer courses that require sophisticated laboratory environments and interdisciplinary curriculum that integrates higher order mathematics, sciences, and technology education. This course work will focus on the intellectual processes of problem solving, analyzing, team building resource allocation, and self-assessment through a cognitive apprenticeship instructional model. The skills taught at CART will be invaluable in both interpersonal and technological growth throughout the students lives. Striving to educate all segments of the community, high school students and adults will reap the benefits of CART. High school students will spend half of their day at the center receiving laboratory instruction. The State Center Community College District will offer postsecondary classes for students. Additionally, the Central California Business Incubator Program will also be located at the center. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to welcome a program of this nature to the 19th District. I look forward to monitoring the progress that CART makes as it works closely with members of the local community. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing the Center for Advanced Research and Technology my best wishes for future success.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rev. Bernard Guekguezian of the First Armenian Presbyterian Church in Fresno, CA. A member of the Armenian Evangelical Union of North America [AEUNA], Reverend Guekguezian was recently elected to a 2-year term as moderator of the AEUNA, the leading organization of Armenian Protestant Churches in North America. Reverend Guekguezian was born in Antioch, Turkey in 1927. Following graduation from school, Guekguezian studied at both the Armenian Evangelical institutions in Beirut and at the Aleppo College in Syria. In 1952, Guekguezian completed the American University at Beirut and the Near East School of Theology. After serving as a pastor in Egypt for 2 years, Guekguezian came to the United States, where he attended the Fuller theological Seminary and the New York Theological Seminary and earned a Master's degree in Christian Education. In 1959, Guekguezian was ordained as a Minister of the Word by the Congregational Conference of Massachusetts. During his stay in Massachusetts, Guekguezian served as minister of the Armenian Congregational Church of the Martyrs, Worcester, MA, the oldest Armenian Church in America. In 1966, Guekguezian accepted a position with the Armenian Presbyterian Church of Paramus, NJ and served the congregation for 12 years. Reverend Guekguezian became a resident of the Fresno area in 1978, when he was installed as pastor of the First Armenian Presbyterian Church of Fresno, the oldest Armenian religious institution in California. Guekguezian resides in Fresno with his wife Knar Kazanjian of Aleppo, with whom he has two sons and three grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Rev. Bernard Guekguezian has been an example of leadership and inspiration to the community of Fresno, the State of California, and the other communities that he has impacted throughout the United States. I offer my sincere congratulations to Rev. Bernard Guekguezian of First Armenian Presbyterian Church on his election as the Moderator of the Armenian Evangelical Union of North America and the best of luck in his new position.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, in hearing the debate today, I wanted to announce myself as being one of those freshmen of the class of 1994 who during the course of the 104th Congress had the unfortunate, felt the unfortunate necessity of voting to shut down the government. A little bit earlier in the debate it was mentioned that the reason that we voted to shut down the Government was because of the fact that we did not get the budget that we wanted. I wanted to come down and clarify the record that the reason that we unfortunately had to go through a Government shutdown 2 years ago is that we felt that rhetoric was not being matched with deed as far as the seriousness of putting forward straight proposals to balance the budget. The budget process, many of us believe, is an opportunity to accomplish four things for this country, for America. The budget process could end with better health for Americans. It could end with better protection for every senior citizen in this country, better environmental protection and better education. A budget that serves as a blueprint toward these things would work. Unfortunately we have to get serious about our budget. This one is not serious.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, on July 1, 1997, Hong Kong concludes one challenging but prosperous chapter, and inaugurates another of equal potential. While continued prosperity marks Hong Kong's future, a thriving economic, and autonomous course is not guaranteed under the shadow of mainland China's stale political and economic policies. The United States must strive to assist Hong Kong and its people in preserving and pursuing economic and political values so close to our own. Thus, I support the objectives of H.R. 750, the Hong Kong Reversion Act. This bill reiterates an unyielding support for the autonomy of Hong Kong and future well-being of its people. The act is not insignificant. For the benefit of my colleagues in understanding the importance of this measure, I include for the record April Lynch's analytical account in today's San Francisco Chronicle. The author skillfully catalogs the concerns Californians have respecting Chinese rule over Hong Kong. Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that our action today is clearly understood in Beijing. The Hong Kong people deserve no less than our unwavering support. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 11, 1997] Bay Area's Big Stake in Hong Kong--Economic, Cultural Ties at Risk Under China Rule (By April Lynch) When the flag of the People's Republic of China is raised over Hong Kong this summer, few other places will have more at stake than the Bay Area and California. A web of multimillion-dollar businesses, strong cultural ties and 150 years of shared history link the Gold State and the City on china's southern coast. Hong Kong and San Francisco, founded about the same time, have long exchanged money, people and plans for the future of the Pacific Rim. ``California and Hong Kong are like neighbors, even with an ocean in the middle,'' said Richard So, 29, a computer consultant who grew up in Hong Kong, went to school in this country and now commutes to work between Sunnyvale and Hong Kong. ``It is hard to imagine one without the other.'' The Bay Area is a favorite destination for people leaving Hong Kong for the United States--since 1993, 25 percent of them settled in San Francisco, Oakland or San Jose. With only 6 million people, tiny Hong Kong is California's ninth-largest export market, buying about $2.6 billion in goods from the state in the first nine months of last year. China, by comparison, has one-fifth of the world's population but ranks 16th on California's list of export buyers. More than 100 California companies--including Bank of America, Walt Disney and Netscape--have offices or their Asia headquarters in Hong Kong. Now, four months before Britain turns one of the world's most lively capitalist hubs over to the world's biggest communist country on July 1, those ties face an uncertain future. People with business or family links to Hong Kong hope that China will allow the territory to remain an economic powerhouse, and many Chinese and Chinese Americans take pride that Hong Kong's transition will all but end the Western colonial presence in China. But those feelings are tempered with caution. ``Hong Kong will continue to be of paramount importance,'' said Jesus Arredondo, spokesman for the California Department of Trade. ``It all depends on what the Chinese government does.'' colony's establishment Since the mid-1800s, California and Hong Kong have never been far apart. Once a few scattered fishing villages, Hong Kong was seized by Great Britain in 1842, after the first Opium War. The colony's establishment encouraged foreign interests that wanted trade and influence in China, but it was a humiliation China has never forgotten. Britain expanded the colony in 1860 with the Kowloon Peninsula and the New Territories in 1898 and along the way turned Hong Kong into a major international port. San Francisco interests quickly looked to Hong Kong to recruit laborers to work the state's gold mines and the railroads. Trade, travel and immigration between Hong Kong and California grew--especially after the colony rebuilt from the devastation of World War II and became Asia's financial hub. Hong Kong now has about as many people and covers as much territory as the Bay Area, but it boasts the world's eighth- largest trading economy and stock market, the world's busiest container port and 9 million visitor-arrivals each year. The mix of Chinese and foreign residents--about 120,000 people in Hong Kong are from other parts of the world, including the United States, England, India, the Philippines and Vietnam--has created a striking cultural blend. A day in Hong Kong can easily mean speaking more than one language at work, choosing between Shanghai, Italian or Indian cuisine for dinner, playing a mean game of billiards and finishing the night with a plate of chow fun at a street-corner stall. The Chinese Communist party stopped short of seizing the colony when it took control of China in 1949 but always made it clear that it wanted Hong Kong back in 1997, when a key lease that gave Britain most of the territory was to expire. In 1984, the two countries reached a deal that would return Hong Kong to China in 1997 but allow the territory remain a ``special administrative region'' with its basic systems intact for 50 years. tiananmen crackdown Goodwill about that plan fell apart with the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989. More than 1 million people filled Hong Kong's streets to protest the bloodshed. Emigration from the colony jumped, and many of Hong Kong's business leaders began moving their holdings or strengthening ties overseas, including in California. Take, for example, Jimmy Lai, the Hong Kong founder of the Giordano clothing chain and publisher of several popular magazines and newspapers. Giordano recently followed many Hong Kong companies in moving its incorporation to Bermuda, and Lai has expressed interest in investing in Silicon Valley. He has good reason to want to expand his business overseas. After the Tiananmen Square crackdown in Beijing, Giordano printed up tens of thousands of bright red bumper stickers decrying the bloodshed and distributed them for free. The stickers became a must-wear item at the huge protests that filled Hong Kong streets. In 1994, Chinese officials shut down Giordano's Beijing store after Lai wrote a magazine editorial describing Chinese premier Li Peng as a ``turtle's egg with a zero IQ.'' Lai resigned as chairman of Giordano shortly thereafter. Lawrence Chan, head of the Hong Kong-based Park Lane Hotels International chain, owns both the Parc Fifty Five Hotel in San Francisco and the Parc Oakland hotel. He said the people who drive Hong Kong's economic machine will take a constructive but cautious approach to the transition. ``As businessmen in Hong Kong, we don't listen much to rhetoric,'' said Chan, who is also president of the Hong Kong Association, a prominent local business group. ``We look for what is going on. We look for actions. . . . Recently, we have been seeing the Chinese government pouring huge amounts of capital into Hong Kong, and that is encouraging. China has a huge stake in Hong Kong's future.'' corruption worries Some China watchers are not so optimistic. There are worries that the corruption that has accompanied China's economic reforms will spill into Hong Kong and that the Chinese government will be fundamentally uncomfortable with having so much free enterprise and private property within its borders. ``I can't see Hong Kong operating at its current level once China takes over,'' said George Lee, professor of international business at San Francisco State University. ``The Communist officials are going to try to control everything they can get their hands on.'' Those worries go beyond big business and multinational corporations to the crowded highrise neighborhoods and outlaying islands where most of Hong Kong's people live. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese emigrants have passed through Hong Kong on their way to the United States since 1850, with a sharp increase after anti-Chinese immigration restrictions were lifted after World War II. Thousands have chosen the Bay Area as their new home--about 20,000 in the past 10 years, according to U.S. immigration statistics. For many Hong Kong immigrants, the coming changes bring concern for friends and relatives still there. Underneath its fancy facade, Hong Kong is an expensive place to live. A small flat in a crowded jumble of concrete highrises can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and many families have worked for decades to buy a home or business. Now, with the handover, people worry that their friends or family see the life they have built slip away. ``There is a lot of apprehension and mixed feelings,'' said Rose Pak, spokeswoman for San Francisco's Chinese Chamber of Commerce, who was born in Hong Kong and moved here in 1967. ``There is pride in reuniting with China. But no one wants to see people there lose their property, or their freedom to travel or speak their mind.'' Still, people in California know there is not much they can do. China's economic modernization in the past decade gives some faith that the Chinese government will shore up Hong Kong, not undermine it. Any unraveling of Hong Kong's economic might would also be a huge loss of face for Beijing, where many Chinese leaders want to show the world they can improve on the way Great Britain ran the colony. ``There is so much there worth keeping and expanding on,'' said So, the computer consultant. ``The big highrises with their wild architecture that stand over little markets a few streets away, and the harbor full of big tankers next to old Chinese junks and fishing boats. It can be a crazy place, but it is always exciting. I hope it will all survive.''

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Ehrlich. As my friend and colleague, Chris Cox from California is one of the many from the 52 Members of the California delegation that traveled to his State back and forth, many of us spend long hours, as do you from Arizona, on the airplane back and forth. I managed to get hold of an incredible book that I would spend my time reading going back and forth across this country. It is called ``Undaunted Courage.'' It is by Stephen Ambrose. It is the story of the discovery or actually the mapping of the Louisiana Purchase by Meriwether Lewis. And he was sent out in the 1800's, 1804, by the third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, to explore what was recently purchased as an addition to the United States. I read with fascination and interest the stories of risk that that man took, Lewis and Clark, both of them, and their party, in coming across to discover this new land and map out this continent. I cannot help but think what either Meriwether Lewis or Thomas Jefferson would have thought had they realized that this country had come to the point where the U.S. Government is taking away wealth from not even the rich, I mean this is middle-class stuff here, and that they are actually into income redistribution. It was fascinating to make that comparison of when you go back and you are privy to so much here in Washington about how this country started and the founding principles and the people and the ideas they had and such hope that they had for the American people, then come to find out that we are in a situation where we are charging capital gains and we are imposing a death tax on the American people. Frankly, I just do not think it was really what they intended when they put this country together with the ideas that they, the founding ideas that they came up with. So it is unfortunate, I think, that we have come to this position, what we the American people have allowed to become commonplace, which ought to be considered either the extreme or the absurd by us in this, in the form of those types of taxes. Granted, there are those that would argue that income redistribution is good for the poor and gives a leg up to the poor and needy. And I just have to say that that is not the case and that the American people, who are very generous people and who are encouraged under freedom to take care of their weaker neighbors, do not have to resort to a government-imposed tax to redistribute wealth in this country. It punishes accomplishment. It punishes success. It is an infringement on the rights of the family institution in this country and really is counterproductive. Unfortunately we have gotten to the point in this country, I guess that is my observation, that this is accepted. This is the norm. I cannot help but think about those early explorers of this continent and the Founders of this Nation who had, if they had any idea what kind of taxes this Government was imposing for the various reasons that they do, they would be rolling over in their graves right now.

Mr. RADANOVICH. My appreciation to the gentleman from Maryland and my wife in the gallery says to say hello. Mr. Speaker, the comment that I did want to make is that, first, in reference to starting business and what you had eloquently said earlier about the fact that those who take the risk should get the reward. One of the things I find very, very interesting in having taken a certain amount of risk on my own in the private sector is that there are a lot of people that are there that want a piece of that that may not have taken that certain element of risk and it is very, very important to understand that that is part of the reward from stepping out and doing something that might be out of the norm, in creating wealth or in any venture. Those who take the risk deserve the reward. They should not be redistributed. The final point that I want to make, unfortunately I have to leave the Chamber, it is when government begins to get too big, when it becomes too large in the great scheme of things in America, when it begins to assume too many responsibilities from the American people, when it becomes activist in social issues and begins to get involved in social engineering, you do have to dream up quite a few different ways to raise revenue. What might be the norm, and how to levy taxes on, say, sales tax or income tax, which has even been accepted as the norm these days, you can go the extreme on issues such as capital gains and estate taxes. It is because I believe that government has gotten far too involved in social issues that they have gone so far as to levy taxes in areas where the Constitution never meant them to be in the first place. Again, it is not the responsibility, I think, of the Federal Government to be enhancing the social network or to be getting involved in social activism. I would read in the Good Book that there is a story in the Bible that talked about the man who gave equal amounts of money to three different people and he punished the one who hoarded the money. It is the responsibility of Americans, I think, with the money that they have been blessed to be able to earn, to regenerate that, to create jobs with it, to reinvest it in their community, to create jobs for many, many people. It is not up to the Government to take that money away and penalize that person for their own initiative and somehow be responsible for that moral obligation of creating wealth and providing jobs in the community of Mariposa or Timonium or in Tempe or in some of those other areas. It is not Government's responsibility to be doing that. It is the individual wealth creator's responsibility to be doing that. Again, it is just another example of somehow, somewhere through the process of government getting way too big and getting involved in way too many things that they have dreamt up this idea that they should social engineer this country and, oh, by the way they are going to impose a death tax and they are going to impose a capital gains tax to fund this thing and, by the way, is the social fabric of this country any better over the last 30, 40, 50 years? I say no, absolutely not. Not only have they decided to get into the business of social activism by imposing taxes of such an abnormal nature as these, they have made things worse and they have done a poorer job of it. I think that is sum and total what we face when we are in Washington, us being freshmen and having the privilege of being here with the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], is that we have the ability now to change something like that. But somebody has to understand whose responsibility is it to create wealth in this country, whose responsibility is it to create jobs, and that is something that is a moral imperative that should not be the responsibility of the Government.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Alice Peters. Mrs. Peters has demonstrated the ability to raise the spirits of people all over the Fresno community. I want to honor her today for her service to Fresno. As noted in a recent edition of the Armenian General Benevolent Union [AGBU] magazine, Alice Peters' family moved to Lynn, MA from Bitlis in 1907. After hearing that more Bitlistsies were residing in the Fresno area, the family moved to a small farming town outside of Fresno called Del Rey. In 1943, she met and married Leon Peters, who was a farmer by day and sold pumps for water at night. The pump business grew and became one of the Nation's premier wine-making machinery plants. Eventually, the business grew to be as large as 300 employees before the couple sold it and began pursuing other interests. Perhaps even more important than the wine-making machinery business was the formation of the Leon S. Peters Foundation in 1959. The foundation, with Mrs. Peters as the board chairman, supports many different educational causes today. Locally, the foundation aids humanitarian endeavors and university scholarships. Foundation guidelines require the money be kept in Fresno to help students locally. Specifically, the foundation also sends funding to various organizations throughout Armenia, including supporting scholarships for students studying at the American University of Armenia and funding to assist children at the Nork Children's Center. Education is not where the work of Alice Peters ends. As one of the leading philanthropists in Fresno, Mrs. Peters was instrumental in starting the Fresno Metropolitan Museum of Art and also is a fundraiser for the Fresno Zoo and the Boy and Girl Scouts of America. Together, Mr. and Mrs. Peters have led Fresno from a small farming town to one of the largest and most thriving cities in California. Mr. Speaker, as an active member of the Fresno community, Alice Peters has contributed to the growth and cultivation of new ideas and accomplishments in the Fresno community. She and her husband faced the challenges and the successes of the business world together. In turn, they gave back to the community that was the foundation for their successes. I ask my colleagues to join me and pay tribute to a woman who strives each day to make the Fresno community as fulfilling for other lives as it has been for her life.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Sahatdjian family of Madera, CA who own and operate Victor Packing. As farmers in the No. 1 agricultural county in the world, the Sahatdjian's are leaders in the grape industry. In a recent article in the Armenian General Benevolent Union [AGBU] magazine, the Sahatdjian's are praised for their outstanding contribution to the San Joaquin Valley. The Sahatdjian family arrived in Fresno in 1924, after fleeing their home in Ezerum, Turkey because of the Armenian Genocide. Their father Vagharshag (Victor), mother Makrouhi and brothers Sarkis and Haig, arrived in the United States when they were 1\1/2\ and 4 years old. Farming and agriculture became a way of life as Victor, a former leather tanner, his wife, and children followed the crops along with many other migrant farm workers. The family went from Rio Vista near Sacramento to pack asparagus, back to Fresno to harvest figs and grapes and then to Northern California when peaches were in season. Eventually, the family settled in Fresno after Victor bought a vineyard of his own and began farming the land. The Depression brought hard times for all in the Valley and the Sahatdjian family provided for members of their extended family by sharing with them the crops grown on their farm. In 1949, Victor purchased a 40-acre piece of land which would eventually become the base of Victor Packing. In 1963, Victor Packing became a full-time farming and packing business when Sarkis and Haig Sahatdjian began to process and pack their own raisins along with the raisins of other growers. Desire, ingenuity, and business savvy paid off for the Sahatdjian brothers. Today, Victor Packing is known as one of the leading packing houses in the Fresco County area. They are the world's largest in production and market-share of golden raisins. They also have the world's largest dehydrator which allows them to produce more raisins at a time for their clients. Additionally, they have continued to focus their efforts on the sun-dried raisin market and are expanding globally to manufacturers all over the world. Nearly 75 percent of their finished product is shipped to the Middle East, Far East, Europe, and the Pacific rim. Mr. Speaker, Victor Packing is an example of the determination and hard work Victor Sahatdjian represented to his family his whole life. The Victor Packing logo is the Liberty Bell and is said to represent the land of freedom that the family found in the United States of America. I ask my colleagues to join me as I offer my best wishes to the entire Sahatdjian family for every continued success.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, my friend and adviser, Dr. Balint Vazsonyi, delivered a lecture today at the Heritage Foundation, which was entitled ``Four Points of the Compass: Restoring America's Sense of Direction.'' The lecture drew a wide cross section of men and women who are in the forefront of Americans concerned about our constitutional underpinnings. Those taking part included Senator Rod Grams of Minnesota, who delivered an insightful evaluation of Dr. Vazsonyi's lecture, Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation, and Daniel McDonald of the Potomac Foundation. As many of our colleagues know, Dr. Vazsonyi's thesis is one to which I strongly subscribe. Indeed, I am pleased to acknowledge the significant role he has played in helping advance new America, the vision expression that we launched last year. That vision is about restoring civil society through structural reform that focuses on revitalizing society's nongovernment institutions--family, business, religious/civic. Mr. Speaker, Balint Vazsonyi's lecture is recommended reading for all who are working to assure that government's grasp doesn't exceed its constitutional reach. I am pleased to make it part of the Congressional Record at this point. Four Points of the Compass: Restoring America's Sense of Direction Although the press appeared not to notice, President Clinton, in his Inaugural Address, called for a new Constitution. He borrowed language from the Declaration of Independence where in 1776 Thomas Jefferson presented the argument for new government. On January 20th, 1997, Mr. Clinton proclaimed, ``We need a new government for a new century.'' He proceeded to set forth all the things this new government would give the American people. Today, I come before you to argue that we need just the opposite. We, at the Center for the American Founding, believe that a tool is necessary to guide us back to the path of our existing Constitution. We offer this tool to the decision makers, legislators and judges of America and ask all of you to help us develop it to its full potential. Because it points the way, we think of it as a compass. What kind of country will exert its best efforts for the benefit of all mankind? Or engage in war without expectation of gain? What kind of country makes it possible that a person who did not grow up in it feel sufficiently at home to step forward with a major initiative? What kind of country has long-time professionals come together to hear a relative novice with a foreign accent speak on national issues? What kind of country? A country which is one of a kind. As we contemplate the future, it is essential that we keep in mind that America, indeed, is one of a kind. Some believe with all their heart that people, and their aspirations, are the same everywhere. This may be so. But the nation established here more than two hundred years ago has neither precedent nor a parallel in the known history of this planet. Not its capacity for success; not its capacity for strength; not its capacity for goodness. It is one of a kind. One-of-a-kind. A big word. You hear it and think of Shakespeare. Or Beethoven. Or George Washington. We look at their work and try to understand what makes it so. It is a hopeless endeavor. But with America, there are definite ingredients we can identify quite easily: the rule of law, individual rights, guaranteed property and so forth. A funny thing, ingredients. We acknowledge their importance in all sorts of scenarios, yet ignore them when it comes to matters of life and death. If we eat something memorable, we want the recipe. With food, we know without the shadow of a doubt that the ingredients make the thing. Chocolate ice cream, for example, takes chocolate, cream and sugar. If, instead, you use ground beef, mustard and ``A1'' sauce, you don't expect chocolate ice cream to come out of the process. Whatever else it will be, chocolate ice cream it will not be. Ice creams come in many varieties. America is one of a kind. Do we honestly expect it to remain America if the ingredients are changed? Over the past decades, the Rule of Law has been displaced by something called ``social justice.'' Group rights and arbitrary privileges make a mockery of the constitutional rights of the individual. Where not so long ago all Americans could feel secure in their right to acquire and hold property, government today is no longer discussing whether-- only how much of it to confiscate, and how to redistribute it. As you see, the ingredients have already undergone drastic change. Is it reasonable to hope that America will nevertheless remain America? And the greatest variety of assaults is launched against something I have come to refer to as ``national identity.'' Now, I realize that some people might have a reaction to that phrase because the term has been used by others as a wedge. I use it as a magnet. As such, it is a necessity. Something needs to bind people together, especially when they have converged, and continue to converge upon a place from every corner of the globe. Identity is about being similar or being different. Since our differences have been amply provided for by nature, we have to agree about those aspects of our lives which will make us similar. For the shared history which other nations have, Americans have successfully substituted a shared belief in, and adherence to, certain principles. A common language took the place of a shared culture. No state religion was established, but a Bible-based morality taken for granted. Add to this a certain work ethic, an expectation of competence in your field of work (whether you split the atom or sweep the floor), a spirit of voluntary cooperation, insistence on choice, a fierce sense of independence--and you have the ingredients of the American identity. And, if you prefer to call it American character or, as George Washington, ``national character,'' it will serve our purpose so long as we remain agreed about the ingredients. For it is these ingredients that have distinguished us from other societies, and enabled those who sweep the floor today to split the atom tomorrow. Today, our nation's leaders are engaged in choosing a path to pursue. Yet, all along, we have had a path to follow. It is clearly pointed in the Declaration of Independence and our founders complemented it with a superb road map they called the Constitution of the United States. Add to this the glossary we know as The Federalist Papers and it is hard to see why and how we could have lost our sense of direction. But lost it we have. That is why we need a compass--the compass in the title of these remarks. Between 1776 and 1791, our compass was calibrated to keep us on the path of betterment--as individuals and as a nation. We even had a kind of ``North Star,'' a magnetic North, in what we call the Rule of Law. But instead, we now have rule by the lawmaker. Every member of the Executive, every member of the Judiciary has become a potential lawmaker and in most cases they use the potential to the hilt. Yet the Rule of Law stands for the exact opposite. As its basic property, it places the fundamental tenets beyond the reach of politics and politicians. Whereas it confers legitimacy upon subsequent laws that spring from its eternal well, it denies legitimacy to all legislative maneuvers that corrupt its purpose. It holds the makers, executants and adjudicators of the law accountable at all times. Above all, it demands equal application to every man, woman and child. Within its own framework, a prescribed majority may amend the law. But as the law stands in any given moment, it must be applied equally. If accomplished, nothing in the history of human societies can match the significance and magnificence of equality before the law. The aspiration for equality before the law began with the Magna Carta or even earlier, in King Arthur's court, where knights sat at a round table. But it took Thomas Jefferson to etch the concept in the minds of freedom-loving people everywhere, more permanently than posterity could have etched the words in the marble of the Jefferson Memorial. And even then, after those immortal words of the Declaration of Independence had been written, it took most of two centuries before America, land of the many miracles, almost made it a reality for the first time ever. But it was not to be. The rule of law, our only alternative to the law of the jungle, came under attack just as it was about to triumph. The attacker displayed the irresistable charm of the temptress, the armament of the enraged avenger, dressed itself in intoxicating cliches, and wore the insigniae of the highest institutions of learning. It called itself ``social justice.'' Let me make it clear: I do not speak of social conscience. That is a frame of mind, a noble sentiment, a measure of civilization. Precisely for that reason, while it has everything to do with our conduct, it has nothing whatever to do with laws. ``Social justice,'' on the other hand, aims at the heart of our legal system by setting an unattainable goal, by fueling discontent, by insinuating a permanent state of hopelessness. But above all, social justice is unacceptable as the basis for a stable society because, unlike the Law, it is what anyone says it is on any given day. We need only to move back a few years, or travel a few thousand miles, and one is certain to find an entirely different definition of social justice. At the end of the day, it is nothing more than an empty slogan, to be filled by power-hungry political activists so as to enlist the participation of well-intentioned people. The Rule of Law and a world according to ``Social Justice'' are mutually exclusive. One cannot have it both ways. What have the Rule of Law and the pursuit of ``social justice'' respectively spawned over time? The Rule of Law gave birth to a series of individual rights. In other words, rights vested solely in individuals. Only individuals are capable of having rights, just as only individuals can be free. We say a society is free if the individuals who make up that society are free. For individuals to be free, they must have certain unalienable rights, and others upon which they had agreed with one another. Social justice has spawned an aberration called group rights. Group rights are the negation of individual rights. Group rights say in effect, ``you cannot and do not have rights as an individual--only as the member of a certain group.'' The Rule of Law knows nothing about groups, therefore it could not provide for, or legitimize rights of groups. Groups have no standing in the eyes of the Law. And, since their so-called rights are invariably created and conferred by persons of temporary authority, they are ``subject to change without notice,'' as the saying goes, just like the definition of social justice itself. Individual rights recognize and promote similarity. Group rights promote differences and stereotypes. Individual rights and group rights are mutually exclusive. One cannot have it both ways. Among our individual rights, the right to acquire and hold property has a special place. If ever a concept came to be developed to protect the weak against the strong, to balance inborn gifts with the fruits of sheer diligence and industry, property inviolate is its name. But who am I to speak, after John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison have pronounced on this topic. They held that civilized society is predicated upon the sanctity of private property, and that to guarantee it is government's primary function. Without absolute property there is no incentive. Without absolute property there is no security. Without absolute property there is no liberty. The freedom to enter into contract, the freedom to keep what is mine, the freedom to dispose of what is mine underlies all our liberties. Neither the search for ``social justice'' nor so-called group rights recognize, or respect, private property. They look upon flesh-and-blood individuals as faceless members of a multitude who, together, create a certain amount of goods. These goods belong to what they call ``The Community.'' Then certain people decide who needs what and, being privy to some higher wisdom, distribute--actually redistribute-- the goods. Redistribution is pursuant to group rights expressed in something called entitlement. Entitlements are based neither on law nor on accomplishment. Entitlements are based on membership in a certain group, and we have seen that groups are designated by persons of temporary authority, rather than the law. The right to property and entitlements through redistribution are mutually exclusive. One cannot have it both ways. We have been ordered by the prophets of social justice to replace our national identity with something they call ``multi-culturalism.'' I will confess that some time in the past, I might have shared the allergic reaction some of you experience in the face of ``national'' and ``identity.'' But then I noticed the enormous importance the social-justice crowd attaches to the destruction of the American identity. Just think: bi-lingual education and multi-lingual ballots. Removal of the founding documents from our schools. Anti- American history standards. Exiling the Ten Commandments. Replacing American competence with generic ``self-esteem.'' Replacing voluntarism with coercion. Encouraging vast numbers of new immigrants to ignore the very reasons which brought them here in the first place. The list goes on, and sooner or later will affect national defense, if it hasn't already. And for those who would point to Yugoslavia as proof of the tragedy nationalism can cause, let me say that a healthy national identity is utterly distinct from nationalism. Like the United States, Yugoslavia was created. But unlike in the case of the United States, ingredients for a national identity were not provided, and Yugoslavia imploded at the first opportunity precisely for that reason. Had it not done so, it would have succumbed to the first external attack, for no Croat would lay down his life for the good of Serbs or Bosnians. Will Americans lay down their lives if America is nothing but a patchwork of countless group identities? Will the Armed Forces of the United States fight to uphold, defend, and advance the cause of Multi-Culturalism? This is not a frivolous question. The questions before us are serious, and legion. We are virtually drowning in what we call ``issues,'' and they are becoming increasingly difficult to sort out. How do we find our position? And, once we find our position, how do we argue its merit? Above all, how do we avoid the plague of serious matters turning into bogus soap operas? We asked you to hear me today, because the Center for the American Founding has a proposal to submit. We call it ``Four Points of the Compass'' because these points provide direction, because--in a manner of speaking--they constitute a re-calibration of our compass which the events of the past thirty years have distorted. They are the Rule of Law, Individual Rights, the Sanctity of Property, and the sense of National Identity. As you have seen, they are interconnected, they literally flow from one another, just as the false compass-points which have come to displace them--social justice, group rights, redistribution and multi-culturalism-- are interconnected and flow from one another. What is multi- culturalism if not a redistribution of cultural ``goods?'' What is redistribution if not a group right? What is a group right if not the implementation of some political activist's version of ``social justice?'' For thirty years, we have acquiesced in a steady erosion of America's founding principles. The time has come to reverse the movement. Rather than contending with countless individual issues, all we need to do is take the debate down a few notches, closer to the core. Let me repeat: we need to take the debate down a few notches, close to the core. We submit that all future policy and legislative initiatives be tested against the four points of the compass. Does the proposed bill negate the Rule of Law? Does it violate individual rights? Does it interfere with the sanctity of Property? Does it constitute an assault on National Identity? Only if the answer is ``No'' in each case, would the proposal proceed. In other words: Only if the answers are NO is the bill a GO. A few items need tidying up. How do we know what the Rule of Law can accommodate, and how far do we take individual rights? The answer, in both cases, comes from Article VI of the Constitution. ``This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof * * * shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby * * *'' It is as uncomplicated as that. In the coming months, we intend to approach the citizens of this great nation and their representatives at all levels with a call to consider adopting this approach. We will hold panel discussions and town meetings so as to invite, engage and incorporate the wisdom and experience of Americans everywhere. There will be retreats and, by year's end, there will be a book with all the details. We do not underrate the magnitude of the step we are proposing, but we honestly believe that it will make life a great deal easier. With a simple stroke, it will become clear that one cannot take an oath upon the Constitution and support group rights. One cannot take an oath upon the Constitution and support the confiscation of property without compensation. One cannot take an oath upon the Constitution and support measures which are clearly at odds with the mandate for national defense. We cannot have it both ways. We have to choose our compass and remember the four points. They are, as we have seen, inseparable. Therefore: Only if the answers are NO is the bill a GO. I do not believe that last November the people of this country voted for the luke-warm bath of bi-partisanship. I believe the people of this country said: If you don't give us a real choice, we won't give you a real election. Yes, people probably have grown tired of the ``issues,'' but they are, I am certain, eager to partake in an effort to choose either a return to our original path, or a clean and honest break with the past. Those who feel that the time has come to change the supreme law of the land should come forward, say so, and engage in an open debate. But let us not continue a pattern of self- delusion. We are heirs to a remarkable group of men who, two hundred plus years ago, had every reason to feel similarly overwhelmed by the number of decisions they had to make. Their response was to make very few laws, for they knew that the fewer the laws, the broader the agreement. They knew people find it hard to agree on everything. So they sought agreement on core principles they held to be non-negotiable. Today, we propose the four that ought to be non-negotiable. They are, as we have seen, inseparable. We call them the four points of the compass. Together, they can and will restore America's sense of direction.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Armenian Assistance Act. This bill is designed to assist Armenia and her people with an ambitious and progressive plan, similar to the successful program Operation Flood of India, to reconstruct sagging agricultural markets. Ultimately, if Armenia is able to feed itself, its people will directly benefit from improved public health and nutrition standards. Improvement to Armenian's agricultural sector, specifically in the area of wheat seed development, is in the direct strategic interest of the United States and our desire to secure the advantages of a stable Caucasus region. Further, this bill will help empower Armenians in their bid for reform, likely establish new markets for United States products, and it specifically will enhance the exporting of United States agricultural products. However, in introducing this bill, I am not proposing additional burdens for America's hardworking taxpayers nor proposing that we neglect America's precious farmland. Our people and farmers deserve more responsible representation. I recognize the need to harness the waste and dated programs contained within past foreign aid budgets. Therefore, I have pursued creative measures for striking a balance between the issue of controlling foreign aid and the need to help Armenia. Allow me to clearly outline what this bill will do: First, empower the private sector transition in Armenia toward a market economy, and likely establish new markets for the United States by strengthening our consumer buying power in Armenia. Second, enhance the exporting of U.S. agricultural products. Third, assist to coordinate activities with the U.S. Department of State, and help to establish a monitoring system in the Caucasus region for zoonotic diseases, which are transmissible from animals to humans. These diseases have no boundaries and are apt to cause major public health problems throughout the region, and furthermore are easily spread to Europe. If this bill is passed, it is my intention to request that the agricultural renewal program in Armenia be implemented by the Armenian Technology Group [ATG], a nonprofit organization based in Fresno, CA. Over the past several years, ATG has been involved in similar programs in the area. It should be noted that, 80 percent of the organization's operational funding has been generated from the private and public sectors, and only 20 percent from U.S. Government sources. ATG has been effective in implementing its programs by working directly with the people of Armenia, in assisting them in their transition toward market economy, and in helping build democracy from the bottom up. I have enclosed for the Record specific figures on ATG's contributions and investments in the agricultural sector of the Republic of Armenia. You may recall in the 104th Congress that the Government of Turkey was appropriated $22 million in economic support aid. Initially, the aid was dependent on Turkey's long-awaited recognition of the Armenian Genocide. A belligerent Ankara reacted to the House genocide clause, a reasonable amendment which I was privileged to introduce and lead in eventual passage in the House, by telling the United States State Department and the United States Congress that Turkey would not accept United States aid with preconditions such as recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Amazingly, Turkey was given the support and was not asked to recognize the genocide. All this despite their declaration to decline United States economic aid, while countries such as Armenia were in desperate need of financial support. The Armenian Assitance Act proposes to redirect the $22 million or any remaining amount not yet obligated from the fiscal year 1997 Foreign Appropriations Act in economic support aid for Turkey, and transfer those funds to Armenia for agricultural development. I'm certain Armenia has been, and will continue to be, grateful for the support of the United States Government and the American taxpayer.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, a recent event affecting this House leaves us with mixed emotions. We are losing one of our Members, but the service to which he is going is greatly important to our Nation. Congressman Bill Richardson has been nominated to be America's next Ambassador to the United Nations. In that role, he will serve in the President's Cabinet and be a principal in the guidance and implementation of our country's foreign policy. I salute President Clinton for his wise choice of Bill Richardson. We need someone with his firmness and no-nonsense approach to represent our interests at the United Nations. All of us are familiar with Bill Richardson's record as a hostage negotiator in troubled world areas. He showed on several occasions that he can identify critical issues and find the means of resolution. My familiarity with Bill Richardson comes not alone from being aware of his creative diplomatic strategies in North Korea, Iraq, and Sudan. I had the good fortune to serve with him on the Resources Committee and on its National Parks, Forests and Lands Subcommittee, where he was the ranking Democrat. Bill Richardson, as the President said, in announcing his intention to nominate him, also is one of our Nation's most prominent and proud Hispanic leaders. His example is one that reflects pride to that community and his heritage. In saluting our colleague as he embarks on a new set of challenges, I take pleasure in sharing with the House the following transition of an article that was published recently in the German newspaper, Handelsblatt. Written by diplomatic and political correspondent Viola Herms-Drath, this report makes plain the high hopes America's allies have for the role Bill Richardson will play. [From the Handelsblatt, Dec. 17, 1996] Clinton's New U.N. Ambassador Seen as Unorthodox Diplomat With the appointment of the long-time Congressman from New Mexico, Bill Richardson, as Washington's new U.N. Ambassador, U.S. President Bill Clinton has achieved two successful political moves. First, he has placed a politically correct Hispanic on his team and, second, he has appointed a creative diplomat with style and a great deal of tact. Clinton has no doubts that Richardson will be able to represent U.S. interests and ideals at the U.N. and in the world. Richardson first came to public notice through his exploits in the political arena, especially because of his spontaneous actions for the release of American citizens being held by totalitarian countries, from North Korea to Bangladesh, Cuba and Iraq. Just a week ago this son of a Mexican mother and an American father was in the Sudan, negotiating an arrangement for the release of two Red Cross pilots and an Australian nurse. Richardson's extraordinary diplomatic mission began by chance when he was participating in Pjonjang in the discussion on nuclear disarmament. At the same time, a U.S. helicopter was shot down over Korea. Richardson took it upon himself to see to the release of the pilots. In 1993 this cosmopolitan liberal Democrat helped Clinton with negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and in efforts to achieve as balanced a budget as possible. In opposition to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he opposed the embargo on Havana after the Cubans shot down two unarmed American planes and Clinton approved the step for tactical reasons and extended it to other countries, to the great irritation of his European trading partners. This Democrat who is also popular with the Republicans now has the task of explaining the U.N. operations to the Senate committee which must confirm his appointment. Although the U.S., as a founding member of the U.N., has always recognized the principles of U.N., now Richardson must continually preserve U.S. prerogatives. The Clinton Administration has always, on the one hand, advocated strengthening the U.N. through reform measures, but on the other hand, has certainly made it clear that for its own economic and security interests, it intends to rely on its own strengths and alliances. In contrast to the rather aggressive behavior of his predecessor, Madeleine Albright, who has now been elevated to the position of Secretary of State, Richardson has shown himself to be a flexible negotiator, a clever diplomat and a reliable go-between.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Supervisor Deran Koligian. Mr. Koligian is a man of soil and a man of service to all of Fresno County. He truly exemplifies what it means to be a family farmer. As noted in a recent article in the Armenian General Benevolent Union (UGBU) magazine, Supervisor Koligian, who is serving his fourth term on the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, is a native of Fresno. His parents left their native home land during the dark days of the Armenian genocide and relocated in Fresno. Koligian faced hard times like many other Armenians who were often the subject of discrimination and ridicule. As a result, life was not always easy for the Armenian families who lived on ``the other side'' of the railroad tracks. Koligian's father and the rest of the family did not surrender to the pressure of being newcomers to the United States. Instead, the elders of the community instilled in the first generation of U.S.-born Armenians a message to concentrate on their education, work hard, and set goals. The words were taken to heart by Koligian. After graduating from Central High School, Koligian went onto Fresno State College and completed a degree in accounting and business administration. At the conclusion of his formal education, he entered into combat as an infantryman in the U.S. Army during World War II. Upon returning to Fresno after World War II, Koligian began a career in farming and became involved in serving the community. Koligian served on the Fresno County School Board Association, the Fresno County Equal Opportunity Commission, and the Fresno Planning Commission. He also served 12 years as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Madison Elementary School, and 12 years on the board of Central High School before his election to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. Koligian oversees services in Fresno County such as public libraries, public schools, the sheriff's department, medical services, and the planning commission. Additionally, he also works with the probation department, courts, housing and tax collection agencies within the county. Mr. Speaker, through the years, Deran Koligian has epitomized the hard work and integrity that our forefathers believed would make the United States a great and prosperous nation. The end result is a man who has served his community with professionalism an a no-nonsense attitude. I ask my colleagues to join me and pay tribute to a man who in the midst of so much else today, serves the public with as much substance as the soil of the Fresno land that he farms.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, Government colleagues and friends in the United States wine industry, earlier this year, at the invitation of the People's Republic of China, the first official American delegation of viticulturists and enologists since 1949 completed a 2-week consultative tour of the Chinese wine industry. The trip, under the sponsorship of the People to People Citizen Ambassador Program, has resulted in broadening the scope of business and market contacts in China and in identifying new opportunities for trade and joint venture activities. As I was consulted during the planning stages of this trip, I was able to lend it my full support and would have joined the delegation had scheduling permitted. The delegation report, I feel, will serve as a valuable source of information for anyone in the United States business community who is interested in doing business in China now or in the future. I wish to commend the delegation, led by Gordon Murchie, president of the Vinifera Wine Growers Association, for its professionalism in representing our country in this important factfinding and trade relations trip. It gives me great pleasure in making excerpts of the delegation's trip report a part of the Congressional Record: Wine Business and Diplomacy China, a nation of 1.2 billion people, has a history of grape growing dating back to the Han Dynasty (121-136 BC) and of grape winemaking dating from the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD). Vitis Vinifera wine production, however, is a more recent 20th-century innovation. While only about one-fifth of China's current grape harvest is made into wine, the potential for wine production and consumption is enormous. Importing and exporting wine is gaining the attention of the newly emerging economic structures of China and foreign investors and partnerships. Both Chinese government and private-sector wine interests are eager to welcome and learn from American viticulture and enology techniques and methodologies. Thus, with an invitation from the Government of the People's Republic of China and through the sponsorship of the Citizen Ambassador Program of People to People International, our Viticulture and Enology Delegation of one French and eleven American wine experts, representing all sectors of the wine industry, visited China, April 14 to 27, 1996. This was the first official U.S. wine Delegation to travel to China since 1949. A previous Viticulture and Enology Delegation was cancelled the day before departure in June of 1989 due to the Tiananman Square incident. the mission of the Delegation was to meet with counterpart contacts at all levels of the Chinese wine industry; exchange information; discuss topics of mutual interest such as vineyard management, winemaking technology, viticulture- enology research and training, sales and marketing strategies, government regulatory oversight, foreign investment and joint venture opportunities, import and export potentials, and tariff rate issues; establish ongoing professional and business relationships; and, generally, assess the status of development and growth potential of the wine industry in the People's Republic of China. The tip itinerary, which included site visits in Beijing, Tianjin, Yantai and Shanghai, provided the Delegation an opportunity to make contacts throughout the whole of the alcohol beverage industry in China. It included meeting the leadership of the PRC Government's oversight ministry, product control and distribution organizations, research and educational facilities, import and export companies, and visits to government, quasi-government, and joint venture wineries and distilleries, and farm vineyard sites. As wine is truly an international language, the Delegation feels that an overall objective of the Citizen Ambassador Program to make friends and promote greater understanding among professional and concerned individuals internationally, in this case between the wine communities of the United States and the People's Republic of China, was in a good measure achieved. The Delegation wishes to express its collective appreciation to all the American and Chinese organizations and individuals which contributed to the planning, arranging, conducting, hosting and support of what the Delegation views as a successful professional exchange experience for all concerned. Our thanks go to the Citizen Ambassador Program People to People International, United States Congressman George P. Radanovich, His Excellency Li Daoyu, Ambassador of the People's Republic of China in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, China National Council of Light Industry, China National Research Institute of Food & Fermentation Industries, China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp., the Tianjin, Yantai and Shanghai Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporations, Shanghai Sugar, Cigarette & Wine Corp., Beijing Agriculture University, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing Pernod Ricard/Dragon Seal Winery, Tianjin Remy Martin/Dynasty Winery, Yantai Chang Yu Winery, Shanghai Remy Martin/Shenma Winery, Mr. Wang Kefa, Town Leader for Longkou vineyards (Penglai), Mr. Scott R. Reynolds, Director, U.S. Agricultural Trade Office, Shanghai, Mr. Peter Chang of Mandarin International Travel and his colleagues (program arrangers), Mr. Jiang in Yantai, Mr. Yan in Shanghai, and especially Mr. Zhao Ying Kong who was the Delegation's guide and mentor throughout the entire trip. Finally, our special thanks go to Anita Murchie who recorded and maintained additional notes on all Delegation meetings and site visits, transcribed the hours of tapes, and typed and edited this 75-page journal report. The full report is available by contacting by VWGA, P.O. Box 10045, Alexandria, Virginia 22310. doing wine business in china The following is a general list of pluses, minuses, and other considerations that any individual, winery, wine consortium or allied business interested in doing business in China should take into consideration. They are not intended to be conclusive, but to serve as a basic check list to be used in developing any business strategy to establish trade, investment, joint venture and/or production and marketing relations with the People's Republic of China. American Products have edge: +Historical and cultural connections. +Chinese view of U.S. on world stage is that it remains a major international economic and political power. -Continuing political contentions between the U.S. and the

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I believe that States should be able to decide whether taxpayer dollars should be spent on public schooling of illegal aliens. That is why I supported the Gallegly amendment when the House passed the immigration reform bill earlier this year. That amendment was adopted by more than a 60 percent margin in the House. If the same support level existed in the other body, we could send a final immigration reform bill to the White House, with the Gallegly amendment intact. Regrettably, that seems not to be the case. A filibuster was threatened against any immigration bill including the Gallegly provision, and reportedly there aren't enough votes to shut it off. That means that getting immigration reform in this Congress requires us to relinquish the Gallegly restriction in the House-Senate conference report. Thus, I shall vote for the conference report. However, to keep faith with my belief and the wishes of the good citizens I represent, I also intend to vote, in the succeeding action, for H.R. 4134, a bill that is a stand-alone Gallegly measure. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to be mindful of a workable alternative to the problem of illegal aliens who are receiving public benefits. It's called report and deport. The immigration reform bill calls for additional INS enforcement personnel and for strengthened deportation. And, the welfare reform law this Congress enacted says that there can be no silencing of those in state and local government who communicate with the INS. The bottom line is that those who remain in this country illegally should know they are breaking the law and are subject to being reported and deported.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I am greatly troubled by the statistics recently released on teenage drug use. How can we feel good about ourselves as a society when teen drug use has increased 78 percent since 1992? By the time teenagers reach 17, 58 percent know someone personally who uses acid, cocaine or heroin, and 43 percent have a friend with a serious drug problem. Mr. Speaker, these are daunting statistics. And what makes matters worse is that this administration has done little to combat this rising tide of drug use. The Clinton administration's 1995 budget proposed to cut 621 drug enforcement slots, and although Congress fought most of the cuts, 227 agents still lost their jobs with the Drug Enforcement Agency. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious problem which demands serious answers. And the only answer we get from President Clinton when asked if he would inhale if he had it to do over again is, ``Sure, if I could. I tried before.''

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to give special tribute to Victor Maghakian, a gentleman who resided in California's 19th Congressional District, and who served our great country, until his death in 1977. William B. Secrest, a guest writer for the Fresno Bee, wrote a wonderful tribute to Mr. Maghakian, and at this time, I would like to share it with my colleagues: ``Transport'' Maghakian Served His Country Well as a Marine To find the soul of Memorial Day, let us pause from gun salutes and distant trumpets to recall the life of a great adopted Freeman. Victor Maghakian was born in Chicago, but he and his family gravitated to San Diego in 1930 and to Fresno nine years afterward. Between moves he served a hitch in the United States Marine Corps and was stationed throughout the Philippines and China. His familiarity with foreign bases and situations earned him the nickname ``Transport,'' signifying ``he knows his way around. ``suicide unit'' When Pearl Harbor occurred, Transport was serving as a Fresno County deputy sheriff. Full of shock and fierce patriotism, he re-enlisted in the Corps immediately. He was elated to discover it needed volunteers for a so-called ``suicide unit'' of crack soldiers. The unit, known as Carlson's Raiders after its founder and commander, Col. Evans F. Carlson, was reserved for the toughest Marines--15,000 applied, 900 were accepted. Its members endured weeks of training in martial arts, mountain climbing, beach landings and 35- to 50-mile daily hikes. By mid-1942 Transport and the Raiders were itching to join the island-hopping, hand-to-hand combat in the Pacific. Their first mission was to fool the Japanese into thinking a large troop wave was hitting Makin Island. Only 222 Raiders were slated for the invasion--a tiny ripple that turned out to be as good as a tsunami. During the night of Aug. 16, the Raiders snuck into Makin via submarines and rubber boats. After daylight the battle began. Transport, machine-gunning frantically and nursing a forearm wound, noticed that two planes with enemy officers had landed. They were assessing the situation for the brass at headquarters and therefore had to be stopped. Bleeding, struggling to stay conscious and armed with just a rifle, Transport crept toward an anti-tank gun. Before he got there, he pulverized an enemy launch with a grenade, and surprised and bayonetted a Japanese infantryman. Luckily, enough ammunition was left to destroy both planes and muzzle the officers. Transport's boldness ensured that the small Raider force stayed a secret. Transport's follow-up exploit was just as amazing. The following December, he and some other Raiders were bogged down by enemy sniper fire on Guadalcanal. Suddenly, a bullet hit and mortally wounded one of his buddies, Lt. Jack Miller of Dallas. Transport stood out and made himself a human target so the sniper would give up his hiding spot. The enemy was soon mowed down and Lt. Miller avenged. This time, Transport's bravado came at a personal price. He was shot through the wrist, and the watch he was wearing became embedded in skin and bone. It took years for the fragments to work their way out or be removed; once, the mainspring was found wrapped around an artery. Some pieces never emerged. willing to take a chance Asked why he took that high risk, Transport offered a homely, yet apt, answer: ``It seems to get you mad. Good and mad. Furious. You make up your mind you are going to get that so-and-so if it costs you a slug in the belly.'' Wounds and risks never daunted Transport. During the 1944 battle of Eniwetok, he elminated the last four Japanese soldiers on Mellu Island single-handedly, and rescued a platoon by looping around an enemy flank and destroying it with grenades. He also saved the life of a young marine who later ended up in Hollywood--Lee Marvin--and became the first officer to raise the American flag on Tinian Island. Transport left active duty in 1946, full of honors: the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. When fully retired he was listed as 60 percent disabled, but it didn't affect his subsequent successful career as a Las Vegas hotel executive and security consultant. After living there for much of the postwar era, he returned to Fresno three years before his death in 1977. Capt. Maghakian now sleeps at Ararat Cemetery. Without the Transports, we would not know freedom, strength or national greatness. It's sad to know that recently, when names were proposed for new local high schools, his came up and was rejected. For now we can honor his name through remembrance, and hope that soon Victor Maghakian will have a memorial which befits his undeniable stature.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I have the sad duty today to report to this House the death of a fellow elected official, Gertrude ``Gert'' R. Taber, from the fifth supervisorial district in my home county of Mariposa, CA. I had the privilege of serving with Gert on the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors, and of knowing Gert as the first lady of Mariposa since I was a young child. Gert served on the board from November 1979 until her passing last week. She provided the citizens of Mariposa County with 17 years of dedicated service during a time of great change in California, and in Mariposa County. Adapting to change was a starting point for Gert, when she broke the barriers of the board of supervisors as the first woman supervisor in the then 125 year history of that board. Gert had many accomplishments as a supervisor, mostly for modernizing Mariposa County's government by creating new administrative, personnel, data processing, community services, fire and other departments and government functions. In addition, she led the charge for improved planning and instituting land use reform; for a comprehensive budget process; for addressing long term space needs of the county; and for ensuring that seniors and children received the best possible services. Gert was always an advocate for those not able to advocate for themselves--for making government work for the people it can best serve. Perhaps more importantly, Gert gave of herself as a wife to Bud Taylor for 49 years, and as a mother of six children. She was an active community member as a Scout leader, 4-H leader, Key leader, sponsor of youth sporting activities and rodeo events, and as the candy lady to a whole generation of Mariposans. Gert was an independent, active and caring voice in the community, and Mariposa will miss her. Mr. Speaker, by honoring Gert Taber, we hold an example for all Americans as contributing members of their communities. For this reason, I am honored to pay tribute to Gert Taber, truly the first lady of Mariposa.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to our Nation's Catholic school system and to the Education Foundation of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for the hard work and diligence that has been shown over the years. The Catholic school system has an excellent track record. Walk by any of these schools and you will see well-behaved and well- dressed students in the school yard. Step inside a classroom and you will see these same children giving their full attention to their teacher's lecture with the ability to correctly answer the questions, a sign that these children are doing their homework, not hanging out at the mall or watching television. Of course, many of these children do not have the means to get to the mall or cannot afford a television. You see, these children come from the poorest families of the inner city. Statistics show that children from these tough neighborhoods will end up in prison, or dead from violence. Why do these children succeed in school? These schools take the most at-risk children and put them in a well-disciplined learning environment. But, as time goes on, this environment is crumbling due to aged facilities. This is why the Catholic school system needs our help. Federal funding for these schools is one answer. Tax credits for parochial-school tuition are another. I am proud of the job our Catholic schools are doing in America. [From the Wall Street Journal, July 17, 1996] Why the Catholic School Model Is Taboo (By Sol Stern) New York City's Cardinal John J. O'Connor has repeatedly made the city an extraordinary offer. Send me the lowest- performing 5% of children presently in the public schools, and I will put them in Catholic schools--where they will succeed. The city's response: silence. In a more rational world, city officials would have jumped at the cardinal's invitation. It would have been a huge financial plus for the city. The annual pre-pupil cost of Catholic elementary schools is $2,500 per year, about a third of what taxpayers now spend for the city's public schools. No idle boast More important, thousands more disadvantaged children would finish school and become productive citizens. For Cardinal O'Connor's claim that Catholic schools would do a better job than public schools is no idle boast. In 1990 the RAND Corporation compared the performance of children from New York City's public and Catholic high schools. Only 25% of the public-school students graduated at all, and only 16% took the Scholastic Aptitude Test vs. 95% and 75% of Catholic- school students, respectively, Catholic-school students scored an average of 815 on the SAT. By shameful contrast, the small ``elite'' of public-school students who graduated and took the SAT averaged only 642 for those in neighborhood schools and 715 for those in magnet schools. In 1993 the New York State Department of Education compared city schools with the highest levels of minority enrollment. Conclusions: ``Catholic schools with 81% to 100% minority composition outscored New York public schools with the same percentage of minority enrollment in Grade 3 reading (+17%). Grade 3 mathematics (+10%), Grade 5 writing (+6%), Grade 6 reading (+10%) and Grade 6 mathematics (+11%).'' Yet most of the elite, in New York and elsewhere, is resolutely uninterested in the Catholic schools' success. In part this reflects the enormous power of teachers' unions, fierce opponents of anything that threatens their monopoly on education. In part it reflects a secular discomfort with religious institutions. I myself have felt this discomfort over the years, walking past Catholic schools like St. Gregory the Great, near my Manhattan home. Every morning, as I took my sons to public school, I couldn't help noticing the well-behaved black and Hispanic children in their neat uniforms entering the drab parish building. But my curiosity never led me past the imposing crucifix looking down from the roof, which evoked childhood images of Catholic anti-Semitism and clerical obscurantism. Finally, earlier this year, I ventured in, and I was impressed. I sat in for example, as fourth-grade teacher Susan Viti conducted a review lesson on the geography of the Western United States. All the children were completely engaged and had obviously done their homework. They were able to answer each of her questions about the principal cities and capitals of the Western states--some of which I couldn't name--and the topography and natural resource of the region. ``Which minerals would be found in the Rocky Mountains?'' Miss Viti asked. Eager hands shot up. Miss Viti used the lesson to expand the students' vocabulary, when the children wrote things down, she insisted on proper grammar and spelling. I found myself wishing that my own son's fourth-grade teachers at nearby Public School 87, reputedly one of the best public schools in the city, were anywhere near as productive and as focused on basic skills as Miss Viti. Both my boys's teachers have wasted an enormous amount of time with empty verbiage about the evils of racism and sexism. By contrast, in Miss Viti's class and in all the other Catholic- school classes I visited, it was taken for granted that a real education is the best antidote to prejudice. Miss Viti earns $21,000 a year, $8,000 less than a first- year public-school teacher, ``I've taught in an all-white, affluent suburban school, where I made over $40,000.'' she says. ``This time I wanted to do something good for society, and I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it. I am trying to instill in my students that whatever their life situation is now, they can succeed if they work hard and study.'' You might expect liberals, self-styled champions of disadvantaged children, to applaud the commitment and sacrifice of educators like Susan Viti. You might even expect them to look for ways of getting government money to these underfunded schools. Instead, they've done their best to make sure the wall of separation between church and state remains impenetrable. Liberal child-advocacy groups tout an endless array of ``prevention'' programs that are supposed to stave off delinquency, dropping out of school and even pregnancy-- yet they consistently ignore Catholic schools, which always succeed in preventing these pathologies. Read the chapter on education in Hillary Clinton's ``It Takes a Village.'' Mrs. Clinton advocates an alphabet soup of education programs for poor kids, but says not a word about Catholic schools. Similarly, in his books on education and inner-city ghettos, Jonathan Kozol offers vivid tours of decrepit public schools in places like the South Bronx, but he never stops at the many Catholic schools that are succeeding a few blocks away. Why are Catholic schools taboo among those who talk the loudest about compassion for the downtrodden? It's hard to escape the conclusion that one of the most powerful reasons is liberals' alliance with the teachers' unions, which have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of liberal candidates around the country. Two weeks ago I attended the National Education Association convention in Washington, a week-long pep rally for Bill Clinton punctuated by ritual denunciations of privatization. Before the teachers' unions rise to political power, it was not unusual to see urban Democrats like former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo support government aid to Catholic schools. Mr. Cuomo's flip-flop on this issue is especially revealing. In 1974, when he first ran for public office, Mr. Cuomo wrote a letter to potential supporters: ``I've spent more than 15 years . . . arguing for aid to private schools,'' he wrote. ``If you believe aid is a good thing, then you are the good people. If you believe it, then it's your moral obligation, as it is my own, to do something about it. . . . Let's try tax-credit plans and anything else that offers any help.'' Mr. Cuomo soon learned his lesson. In his published diaries he wrote: ``Teachers are perhaps the most effective of all the state's unions. If they go all-out, it will mean telephones and vigorous statewide support. It will also mean some money.'' In his 1982 campaign for governor, Mr. Cuomo gave a speech trumpeting the primacy of public education and the rights of teachers. He won the union's enthusiastic endorsement against Ed Koch in the Democratic primary. Over the next 12 years, in private meetings with Catholic leaders, Gov. Cuomo would declare that he still supported tax relief for parochial school parents. Then he would take a completely different position in public. For example, in 1984 he acknowledged that giving tax credits for parochial-school tuition was ``clearly constitutional'' under a recent Supreme Court decision--but he refused to support such a plan. Politically controlled schools are unlikely to improve much without strong pressure from outside. Thus, the case for government aid to Catholic schools is now more compelling than ever. If only to provide the competitive pressure to force state schools to change. And the conventional wisdom that government is constitutionally prohibited from aiding Catholic schools has been undermined by several recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. sucker's trap Since the powerful teachers' union vehemently oppose any form of government aid to Catholic schools, reformers are often skittish about advocating vouchers or tuition tax credits, fearing that will end the public-school reform conversation before it begins. But to abandon aid to Catholic schools in the name of public-school reform is a sucker's trap. We have ended up with no aid to Catholic schools and no real public-school reform either. Catholic schools are a valuable public resource not just because they profoundly benefit the children who enroll in them. They also challenge the public-school monopoly, constantly reminding us that the neediest kids are educable and that spending extravagant sums of money isn't the answer. No one who cares about reviving our failing public schools can afford to ignore this inspiring laboratory of reform.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I recently learned that Dr. Kenneth Lutgen, deputy general secretary for the United Methodist Committee on Relief will be testifying this fall before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee on European Affairs. Dr. Lutgen is an insightful individual who possesses an excellent command of the projects necessary to bring economic stability and political calm back to the war-torn areas of Bosnia. I would like to include for the Record a useful summary that Dr. Lutgen has provided me in advance of his subcommittee remarks. Summary of Proposed Testimony on the Bosnian Peace Process by the United Methodist Committee on Relief [UMCOR] to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee on European Affairs The testimony will be presented by Dr. Kenneth Lutgen, the Deputy General Secretary for the United Methodist Committee on Relief. Dr. Lutgen will present a summary of UMCOR's programs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The UMCOR Former Yugoslavia Program began in 1993 and has since expanded to over 15 projects, with a current total value of over $42,000,000. UMCOR is operating out of eight program offices throughout Bosnia and has a staff of over 220. UMCOR, as well as other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operating in Bosnia, is deeply concerned about the current U.S. Government policy toward assistance to the Bosnian reconstruction. As we understand it, the current policy of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is to channel all funds for Bosnia through two projects, (1) the Municipal Infrastructure project, and (2) the Bosnia Reconstruction Finance Facility. These projects are designed to work primarily through U.S. contractors and banks, large Bosnian firms, and the Bosnian Government. There will be no funds available directly to assist vulnerable groups, repatriating refugees, or microenterprises, groups traditionally reached by NGO activities. We feel that these projects overlook the benefits NGOs can provide to reaching other groups, as well as a longer-term effect on the Peace Process and the strengthening of democracy in Bosnia. The unique benefits of NGOs include: Constituency: Many NGOs have large constituencies who support their overseas programs. UMCOR represents 10 million United Methodists worldwide who support projects with cash, relief supplies, and their own time. UMCOR has sent over 250 United Methodist volunteers into Bosnia, providing assistance in everything from building construction to skilled psychological support for traumatized youth. UMCOR has contributed about $4.7 million in private resources to Bosnia since 1993. Rapid Response: NGOs are on the ground, have the experience, connections, and demonstrated capacity to move quickly when the U.S. Government wants something done. When the U.S. Government wanted to implement $25 million worth of housing reconstruction immediately this year, they turned to the NGOs. Competitive Pricing: NGOs were not allowed to compete for MIS and BRFF. We feel that NGOs can do provide the same level of work as a for-profit contractor at a lower price and, in addition, bring substantial in-kind contribution to the projects. NGOs have the capacity to implement large programs: UMCOR is currently implementing a $30 million Shelter Materials project funded by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and a $6.3 million Emergency Shelter program funded by USAID/Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. Sustainability: While a contractor will do the job and leave, NGOs are committed towards sustainable development and consider the development of capable local organizations an important goal of their activities. UMCOR's USAID-funded Municipal Rehabilitation Project has rebuilt houses and community facilities, while promoting inter-ethnic cooperation which will last long after UMCOR leaves Bosnia. Strengthening of Democracy: Many of the activities of NGOs directly implement the goals of the Dayton accord, such as conflict resolution, electoral mobilization, and inter-ethnic cooperation. Civilian Security: NGOs, by working closely with beneficiaries, provide a sense of security. Throughout the war, NGOs were there for the most vulnerable groups and have built up credibility with Bosnians. Working with for-profit groups brings in new players with no credibility at the grass roots level. Positive Popular Impact: NGOs are popular with Bosnians and present a positive image for the U.S. Groups whose principal goal is to help the Bosnian people increase good will towards the U.S. We agree with the need for large infrastructure and enterprise promotion programs, but we feel that this is not a complete response to the needs of the Bosnian people and the Bosnian Peace Process. We feel that the USAID projects are overly top-down and do not address the needs of vulnerable groups. There will be no funds specifically for income-generation, which would reach those in-need. Instead funds are channeled only through large-scale enterprise promotion vehicles. Sectors where NGOs typically work, including education, social programs, promotion of civil society, and conflict resolution, are being neglected by current U.S. Government assistance. The MIS and BRFF projects work with new players who will need to build up relations and experience of working in Bosnia's unique environment. This represents time lost in Bosnia's reconstruction. Therefore, UMCOR recommends the following changes to the U.S. Government civilian policy in Bosnia: 1. That the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) make future funding for the Municipal Infrastructure Program (MIS) available through open bidding, allowing NGOs to compete. 2. That $30 million be set aside for NGOs from the Bosnian Reconstruction Finance Facility (BRFF) to implement microenterprise activities. 3. That the $10 million in agricultural resources currently set aside for the USDA Food for Progress program for Bosnia be made available to NGOs to implement food or monetization programs. 4. That the USAID Partnership with NGOs be re-established in Bosnia and Herzegovina. conclusion We have heard the U.S. Government speak of the need for a relief-to-development ``continuum,'' in which an emphasis is made to ensure a smooth transition from relief activities to more sustainable development activities. We do not believe the current policy is following a continuum. Rather than including all levels of Bosnian society, the U.S. Government is making a rapid shift toward working only with the Bosnian Government and larger businesses. This limits assistance which is direct to vulnerable groups and microenterprises which potentially could employ significant numbers of people. This policy is not a continuum, it is a step backwards, away from all the accomplishments made by U.S. Government assistance in Bosnia over the last few years.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to add to that comment and appreciate the sentiment. Before saying what I am going to say, there are two things that need to be said. One is that it does not matter who gets credit for this, it passed and it was good for America. So it does not make any difference if the President gets credit or Congress gets credit. However, having said that, I would say one thing, and that is during the dark times of late December, early January, when we were struck in the middle of a Government shutdown, when the freshmen were getting a lot of flak for standing on resolve and keeping certain people to their word, this is the fruit of that. I think that I am not at all out of line to say that had we not gone through a Government shutdown, we would not have had the President of the United States in the Chamber saying that the era of big Government is over and we would not have a President in here signing welfare reform that changes welfare as we know it simply because he knew that there were people in the House of Representatives that were going to keep him to his word, come heck or high water. I think that that needs to be said. We are seeing the fruits of that shutdown. I know it is a tough subject, I know it is not what people want to go back to and talk about, but the American people know that that was absolutely necessary in order to get the changes that we are beginning to see the fruit of now.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it also is fair in saying too that when we are dealing with generations of people who are used to being on the welfare rolls, we have to be concerned a little more about conscience-building among those ranks to get them off. Work is a moral responsibility. It really is not something that government should be teaching right now. Every citizen in this country has the obligation of work, but it is very hard to instill those values, being a government institution. That is why block granting and getting these ideas away from government and starting to think about religious and civic institutions instilling those morals, and in the business institutions learning to work, so people go out and get the job and get the satisfaction of a day's pay for a day's work. It will be a wonderful thing. Government cannot teach those things.