George Radanovich

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am confused. Is that an increase?

Mr. RADANOVICH. If I am to believe that you are slashing and burning Medicare, my assumption then would be that we must be cutting that, then, from $4,800 a year to, what, $2,300 or $2,200.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes; answer me.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I believe that is the case, Mr. Speaker. I think, too, what the American people need to know when they are confronted with what I call fearmongering like this, all the F's that were on the report cards, and how you are against so many good things, reminds me of a scene in a jungle somewhere where a group of people, say 10 people, get stuck in a murky old swamp and they are up to their armpits in swamp water, and they are stuck in the mud and cannot get out. They have been in there so long, and by the way, the Great Society is the name of the swamp, and they are stuck in there and they cannot leave. They have been there so long that they cannot think that there is anything better than that swamp. So finally a couple of people out of those 10 get the inspiration. They see a hill, a shining hill, and want to begin to stir the efforts of those to begin to get themselves out of the swamp, and you have people full of fear, so used to being stuck in the swamp that they cannot imagine anything different and do not want to take what even might be a perceived risk to get out of the swamp and change to a better country, which I call what the Republicans are trying to do. That is a sad state of affairs when you have to defend the order that we are in this country right now, because many people feel, and many people believe that we indeed are stuck in a swamp. But many people believe that they would love to be inspired by that shining hill and make the journey out of the swamp and onto the hill. The people that attack you the people that give you F's, are the same people saying let us stay in the mud because we fear change. That is really what the big sin is. One more point that I want to make, too, on the issue of minimum wage, standing up for families and seniors, and, you bad person who got the F, educational opportunities. All of those things are good things, but if we are going to change this country for the better, we have to start answering the question: If those are things of value to me, to Andrea, to Bob, to everybody in this country, if they are so valuable to you, why on earth would you trust those things to a Washington bureaucrat?

Mr. RADANOVICH. It is a political issue to divert attention away from the more urgent business at hand, and that is balancing the budget.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, my comment would be that the timing of this issue, at least in my view, and I have to let you know where I am coming from, and that is that basically I think that the establishment of a minimum wage really is a violation of the separation of government and business. I do not think that the Federal Government should be involved in the establishment of a minimum wage, No. 1. No. 2, this issue was raised, and the comment about the President illustrates this point as a diversionary tactic, to divert the Nation's attention away from the real business at hand in Washington. That is balancing the Federal budget, getting our Federal act in order, learning how we can privatize certain things that government does, learning how we can localize. This is a perfect example of things that probably should not be discussed on this floor of this House, is better left at the State level or even the local level for the establishment of minimum wages in States.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come speak to the American people regarding the important issues of the day, and I would like to start off by commenting on how important words are, I think in conveying messages. In my short term here in Congress, I am a freshman, I have been here a little over a year, I have learned a couple of vital things, and that is that we have to be very, very careful about the words that we say to make sure that they are communicating exactly what we mean to the American people, because words are very important. It is in that spirit that I offer the following vision, in an attempt to determine a way to communicate to the American people the role and the mission of the Republicans here in Congress. If we can say things and put them down into easily understandable terms, using very symbolic figures, it can go a long way to explaining to the American people how we would like to go and where we would like to take this country. It is in that spirit that I offer this following vision. Let me use the simple symbol of a chair to illustrate where we are in America and I think where the Republican Congress would like to take this country. In starting with something such as this, I think it kind of illustrates where America is right now. I believe that before we can entrust or get the American people's trust in following us, we have to accurately describe where America is right now, and this portrait of this chair is a good illustration of American society. So welcome to America. Basically we have an unstable chair, something that does not provide very much freedom, something that does not provide very much security. This is really the condition of our country right now, I believe. You will notice the chair has four legs, but the problem is that none of the legs are the same size as the other legs on the chair. Look at the government leg, way too long. Look at the family leg. It would be very easy to sell the argument to the American people that the family unit has basically been decimated over the last 30, 40 years with the notions of the Great Society and the Great Society mentality that this Congress has been operating under over the last 40 years. Business institutions and religious and civic institutions in this country are not operating up to their fullest capacity because of the large leg that knocks everything out of proportion and creates much instability and insecurity in the society. Take the next chart to further illustrate this in a different way, and that is by saying I think that it is safe to state that in America today our institutions are disproportionate to one another, and that is the basis or the cause of a lot of our civil and financial problems in this country. You will notice in the government institution, of all dollars spent on government, 70 percent of those dollars are spent at the Federal level, 30 percent of those dollars are spent at the State and local level. Religious institutions and business institutions, as I mentioned, are not operating at full capacity due to overtaxation and regulation and problems with civic institutions that do not really fill their proper role in society, that basically have been taken over by the government institution. The family institution has been decimated over the last 30 years. There are two ways that we can solve this problem, because we believe that the American people sent us to Congress in this wave of the 1994 election to solve the problem of the reality that I just described. There are two ways that we can solve the problem. This is not the way to do it. This somewhat illustrates the current efforts that we have been going through during the last year with our great deal and our determination to downsize Federal Government. What we failed to do, though, in chopping off certain responsibilities and lopping them out of the government sector, is to take into consideration how the downsizing of Federal Government would have an effect on the other institutions in the American society. Now, I will say that Lyndon Johnson said it right. When he began to campaign for the Great Society in the early 1960's, he said ``Great Society.'' He did not say ``great government,'' even though that is what he did. He tried to solve all of society's problems through a great government, and it ended up getting us $5.5 trillion worth of debt and expanded the ranks of the poor and needy. Everything that government got into basically in many of the areas of our lives has made the problems worse, not better. So I think what the Republicans need to learn is that in addition to our concept of downsizing, we have to think in terms of relationships, of how to build these other institutions in this country so that they can begin to fulfill some of the obligations that we feel government should no longer be in. If Members would like to do it like this, we have a helter-skelter approach. It is not good for this country. Basically this is the result of a negative message, and anti-Great Society message, an antigovernment message. I think what we would like to do, the Republicans would like to do, is to paint an accurate picture of what America would look like after using the balanced budget process as a blueprint to get to a better America. That can be accomplished, I believe, in two ways. One is through the legislation that we would be accomplishing on the House floor and in the Senate and through the White House, and the other would be to illustrate how the issue of personal responsibility ties into the reestablishing of the family institutions and the downsizing of Federal Government. If we are to downsize Federal Government and take into consideration its effect on the other institutions in this country, and also build these other institutions up so that they are able to receive these responsibilities that we therefore determine are no longer the responsibility of the Federal Government, then it should occur in some of the following examples such as this: There are many who believe that once government entered into the social programs, that they actually made them worse. The war on poverty is not over. There is more poverty since war was declared on poverty by the Federal Government in the early 1960's. Many of the concepts of the Good Samaritan I think people agree are found in scripture, not in the Constitution. They are better met by civic and religious institutions in this country. We should begin designing tax overhaul problems in relationship to, with the objective, I should say, of shifting that responsibility from the institution of government over to civic and religious institutions. By that I mean providing generous deductions for contributions made to not only church groups but civic groups, nonprofit groups, private charities, anybody, any group that takes care of the poor and needy, so that as this fulfillment of that need to care for the poor and needy expands in this civic and religious institution, the social programs of the government are correspondingly reduced so that we can have a phaseout of government's participation, but the need is met and even met more effectively in this institution that begins to rebuild this one. Deregulation and tax relief, a mantra of the Republican Party, and justifiably so, will reduce the amount of overhead of the Federal Government. Regulation costs money, and they have to raise taxes in order to make the money in order to pay for the increased regulation of government. That is, as it is shifted down, it begins to rebuild the business institution because business can expand when they get tax and regulation relief, so we have a downsizing of that institution and a beginning of the rebuilding of the business institution. Third, an example of education and how much it can rebuild the family institutions is by making the point that the education system in this country must be answerable to the family unit, because parents are ultimately responsible for the education of their children, and not the government. I do not mean that everybody in this country should be home schoolers. What I do mean is that through local control of education, not Federal control, by the abolishment of the Department of Education, returning responsibility back to the community level, local control or a voucher system puts that responsibility back onto the family unit, so our parents can have more after choice in their child's education. It, too, reduces the amount of government. On the issue of localizing, you have today 70 percent of all total dollars spent on the Federal Government, you have like laws that are current State level, and also local level. So it is to the benefit if you take all these programs and push them back down to the State level by block granting. Or if you push them down at the local level by further block granting to counties, you begin to reduce the amount of government by reducing the Federal Government's role in these problems, but still having government obligations met at the State and local level. Mr. Speaker, these are indications of how we start downsizing in such a way that we begin to rebuild these institutions. I want to make one point, and that is that we have begun to get some rebuilding of these institutions. But they are not operating at the full capacity that they could, and this will never occur at their full capacity without the issue of personal responsibility, which is the next slide, if you would like to go ahead and put that up there. The issue of raising the conscience of the American people is really a very important key in bringing stability and actually recreating a free society in America, and that is not a role of the government institution. It is the role of religious institutions. Now, civic organizations can take care of poor and needy, but it is the responsibility of the churches across the land to begin to raise the conscience of the American people so that they, the American people, can begin to operate effectively in these other institutions. By raising the conscience of the American people, it allows their capacity through religious and civic institutions to take over the social programs in this country. By raising the conscience of the American people in the family institution, it encourages personal responsibility so that parents are better parents, kids are better kids, marriages are not conducted frivolously, divorces are not conducted frivolously, people actually take serious responsibility within the family institution. Raising the conscience of the American people allows the business institution to expand through two things, by encouraging less lawsuits and by the establishment of peer review. By peer review I mean that doctors police doctors, lawyers police lawyers, like-minded business policies like-minded business so that peer review, those of us judging each other, acts as a buffer between direct government control and no government control at all. It provides a cost-effective way by decreasing the cost of regulation, therefore decreasing taxes on business, to allow that business institution to expand to its fullest capacity. So while you have downsized Federal Government, and the other issue is through raising the conscience of the American people, it allows us to flip this awkward percentage of large Federal, 70 percent being spent by Federal Government, and 30 percent at State and local governments, to be switched back down. Not only would we reduce the size of government, but that which we do spend is returned, 70 percent spent at the local level, 30 percent spent at the Federal level. I cannot tell you how many times I heard on the House floor, especially when we were talking about block granting crime money at the local level, various Members standing up here, and we were arguing for no strings attached, let the local people decide how best to take care of crime in their various districts and people arguing that you simply cannot trust those local elected officials because they will go spend it on something else. My statement is, by raising the conscience of the American people, we can give more responsibility to elected officials in this country so that we can begin to attack the arrogant assumption that the only elected officials that you can trust are the 536 that are in Washington right now. Through this idea I think what we begin to get is a proper vision of where we would like to take this country through a balanced budget process. And it is pretty much described in this one, which I call a free society, and that is where a Federal Government's role in this country is in equal proportion to the other institutions that form American society so that government is equal to religion, is equal to family, is equal to business. Not only that, but in a government institution the Federal Government's role in total spending is back to 30 percent, State and local control is the larger share of 70 percent. Throughout history we have faced times of disproportionate institutions. Our country was developed because of the overly repressive monarchy in England, and that is what caused this disproportionate system for the Pilgrims to come to this new land. During the Industrial Revolution the business institution was disproportionate in its influence to other institutions in this country. During the inquisitions, an early church period, the religious institutions were far too disproportionate to the other institutions in this country. And in the last hundred years, through socialism, Communism, fascism we have experienced disproportionate government over the other institutions in this country. And in America we felt the ancillary effects of that through the Great Deal and also the Great Society. So this is the vision of America: this is a free society. It provides the maximum amount of freedom and security for Americans so that they can go on to begin to pursue life, liberty and happiness with the surest amount and the greatest of success. What you end up with in relationship to my first slide was the result of that, and you can go ahead and change those, and that is a chair that works, a chair much like society in that both of them provide freedom and security so that you may sit in a chair, discuss, read, go about your business, and government is constructed in such a way that people can pursue life, liberty and happiness and not worry about insecurities or lack of freedoms. Mr. Speaker, this is the vision of the Republican Party. This is a free society. This is when government is no longer any bigger than the religious institutions and civics institutions in this country, no longer bigger than the family institutions who have been restored to their full effectiveness, and no longer disproportionate to the business institutions providing a firm foundation for us to live on and experience the maximum amount of life, liberty and happiness in this country. So I submit that to the American people and appreciate the time. I do have time and want to yield to my friend and colleague from Maryland, Mr. Bob Ehrlich, who wants to begin a second portion of his presentation. I also welcome my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California, Andrea Seastrand. So, Bob, I want to switch over to you and give you the magic wand, and I will be back up on that seat there.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, today marks the first anniversary of the death of Gilbert Murray, the former president of the California Forestry Association. Gil was known by all as someone who cared deeply about the outdoors. More specifically, he committed his personal and private life to maintaining the proper balance between protecting nature and developing the natural resources that are necessary to our civilization. He loved the outdoors and passed his appreciation of nature onto his friends and family. Tragically, 1 year ago an environmental extremist took the life of Gilbert Murray, depriving his family of a loving husband and father. His death was senseless. While claiming to promote the environment, someone took the life of Gilbert Murray, a person who dedicated his career and life to promoting the sensible use of California's forest. As we continue to debate environmental issues in this country, let us remain wary of the arguments of those who are unwilling to accept a reasonable balance between the needs of nature and humans. Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of my colleagues will join with me today in honoring Gilbert Murray by learning and promoting the ideals that Gil held so close to his heart.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, between 1915 and 1923 the Ottoman Turkish Empire committed a terrible genocide against Armenians. In a systematic and deliberate campaign to eliminate the Armenian people and erase their culture and history of 3,000 years the Turks committed this atrocity. As a result, over one-half million Armenians were massacred. The Armenian genocide is a historical fact, and has been recognized by academics and historians all over the world. The documentary evidence is irrefutable and beyond question. Unfortunately, the Turkish Government is still persisting in their denial that the genocide took place. Many survivors of the genocide have made the United States their new home. On April 24, 1996, Armenians all over the world will commemorate the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Commemoration activities will occur in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, and in my district in Fresno, CA. I have the honor of representing thousands of Armenians in California's Nineteenth Congressional District, and I send my sincerest condolences on this solemn occasion to all members of the Armenian community. As a member of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I intend to join my colleagues, Representatives Porter and Frank Pallone, in a special order on April 24, 1996 on the floor of the House of Representatives to commemorate the genocide victims. I am an original cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 47 which calls on Congress to officially recognize the Armenian genocide and encourages the Republic of Turkey to do the same. This legislation would call on the Government of Turkey to turn away from its denials of the Armenian genocide, and instead, to openly acknowledge this tragic chapter in its history. By doing so, the Turkish Government can help to raise the level of trust in a strategic, yet highly unstable, region of the world and facilitate the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 47. Remembering this genocide against the Armenians will help ensure that this type of tragedy is never allowed to occur again.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, between 1915 and 1923 the Ottoman Turkish Empire committed a terrible genocide against Armenians. In a systematic and deliberate campaign to eliminate the Armenian people and erase their culture and history of 3,000 years the Turks committed this atrocity. As a result, over one-half million Armenians were massacred. The Armenian genocide is a historical fact, and has been recognized by academicians and historians all over the world. The documentary evidence is irrefutable and beyond question. Unfortunately, the Turkish Government is still persisting in their denial that the genocide took place. Many survivors of the genocide have made the United States their new home. On April 24, 1996 Armenians all over the world will commemorate the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Commemoration activities will occur in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and in my district in Fresno, California. I have the honor of representing thousands of Armenians in California's 19th Congressional District, and I send my sincerest condolences on this solemn occasion to all members of the Armenian community. As a member of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I intend to join my colleagues, Representatives John Porter and Frank Pallone in a special order on April 24, 1996 on the floor of the House of Representatives to commemorate the genocide victims. I am an original cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 47 which calls on Congress to officially recognize the Armenian genocide and encourages the Republic of Turkey to do the same. This legislation would call on the Government of Turkey to turn away from its denials of the Armenian genocide, and instead, to openly acknowledge this tragic chapter in its history. By doing so, the Turkish Government can help to raise the level of trust in a strategic, yet highly unstable, region of the world and facilitate the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the passage of H. Con. Res. 47. Remembering this genocide against the Armenians will help ensure that this type of tragedy is never allowed to occur again.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes, it would. I have a number of cases where people have gone the extra mile to provide habitat on their farms, to provide for the environment, things that they would like to see on there, and then being further penalized because of the fact that they have done that. Current law penalizes any initiative like that that is out there and currently exists. This country will not survive unless stewardship is brought down to the local level and people are given incentives to take care of their private property and the environment, because that is really a natural thing for people to want to do. I think that natural tendency ought to be encouraged through legislation.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I wanted to add my comments into the Record regarding this legislation. I think anybody here on this floor is in favor of protecting endangered species, is in favor of protecting the environment, is in favor of good stewardship. The question remains, though, is it a responsibility of the private property owners, is it a responsibility of local government, is it a responsibility of State government, or is it a responsibility of the Federal Government, and where do those responsibilities lie? I think the folly of the endangered species over the last year has demonstrated that the heavy hand of Federal Government in care of the environment can produce some pretty crazy results. For instance, there was the arresting of a farmer in California for disking up five kangaroo rats and being sent to trial in Federal court. My hope is that in the adoption of the Endangered Species Act, according to the Pombo- Young bill, that that responsibility begins to be returned away from Federal bureaucrats and back down to the State, local, and private property owner level, because that is where good stewardship begins in this country.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I can tell you from personal experience where there were times when we would allow onto our property certain environmental groups to catalog certain species of flowers and different things. There is no way in God's green Earth we would be allowing that right now, simply because what it does is it leads to stealing of your private property rights. So under current law, there is a disincentive. The gentleman earlier mentioned the term ``shoot, shovel, and shut up.'' That is very, very clear in response to current legislation.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to repeal the ban on certain types of assault weapons. This proposal carries great importance to my constituents in the 19th District of California. Many of the men and women I represent live in remote areas. ``911'' does not insure an instant emergency response for them. Lives are at stake here, Mr. Chairman, and it is essential that we move to protect those who legally try to protect themselves. Althouth the framers of our Constitution hardly envisioned a society so besieged with violence as our current culture, they understood the constant need to be on guard, to defend our liberties. If we were to infringe on the American public's right to bear arms, surely that would be to breach the spirit of our laws and the essence of our Constitution's second amendment. That provision of the Bill of Rights is explicit. A vote to repeal the weapons ban is my vote of confidence in America's Constitution and America's people. In passing this legislation today, Congress demonstrates a respect for the integrity of those who penned the words of our country's most profound accomplishment.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I support the Gallegly amendment to allow a State to exercise the right to refuse illegal immigrants admission to public schools. Public schools are supported by taxpayers. The children of these men and women properly derive the benefit of education in public schools. By telling illegal immigrants that the attraction of free education for their children no longer exists, we send a powerful message. It says those who are lawfully present in the United States are welcome to participate in its privileges. But, those who have broken the law to enter our country or to remain here after their lawful entry expired deserve no benefit from the taxpayer. Illegal immigration is a threat to our national security. By adopting this amendment, we can enlist the States--and I assure my colleagues that California will move on it immediately--in a concerted and comprehensive campaign to end this menace.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, earlier in this debate I signaled my support for the guest worker program involving American agriculture. This can be a potent solution to two pressing needs: assuring an adequate labor supply for the farm fields of our country and delivering a body blow to illegal immigration. We of California's San Joaquin Valley recognize the critical requirement for farm labor during certain seasons. Allowing those from abroad to fill the gap from shortages of American workers makes good sense--economically, agriculturally, and socially. Noteworthy, I believe, is the strong stance of the Nisei Farmers League. Its president, Manuel Cunha, has told me, ``this is the ideal program to meet the seasonal employment needs of agriculture.'' This amendment is good on all sides. It has safeguards that protect domestic employees, that provide payment of prevailing wages, and to see workers return when the work is over. I support it and urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, my vote for the Gallegly-Bilbray- Seastrand amendment will be cast for three reasons: First, it should not be the employer's burden to decide whether work permission documents are real or phony. Second, the guest worker program for agriculture, which I shall support when it is brought up later in this debate, will work better with 800 number verification. Third, finally--and most importantly--I am committed to immigration reform, especially putting a stop to illegal immigration. U.S. borders are breached by those looking for work here. American employers should be able to pick up the phone and quickly and accurately determine whether an applicant is legally entitled to work. Those who aren't won't be hired. They'll have little reason to stay, and there'll be reduced incentive for others to follow the same wrong route.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has talked a good game on welfare reform, particularly when the cameras were focused on him during the State of the Union Address. But his two vetoes of welfare reform legislation speak much louder than his crowd-pleasing rhetoric. As we, in Congress, continue to pursue an overhaul of the current system, the California legislature has moved ahead with its own welfare reform legislation, designed to restore work incentives and help people on welfare become independent and productive citizens. The speaker of the assembly, Curt Pringle, has been a leader in California's welfare reform effort. In the March 4, Los Angeles Times, Speaker Pringle correctly pointed out that President Clinton, far from being a leader in welfare reform, is actually its major impediment. California and the other States cannot reform their welfare programs without Federal approval. If President Clinton had approved the legislation sent to him by the 104th Congress, California would not have to go through an extremely difficult and time-consuming Federal waiver process in order to implement its own reforms. California could be moving forward with its reforms right now. Given the continued urgency of this issue, I would like to request that Speaker Pringle's excellent commentary be entered into the Record at this point. [From the Los Angeles Times, March 4, 1996] Clinton Isn't Doing California's Poor Any Favors (By Curt Pringle) President Clinton said, ``I believe we should ship decision-making responsibility and resources from bureaucracies in Washington to communities, to states and, where we can, directly to individuals.'' When he makes statements like that about welfare reform, does he seriously expect us to believe him any more? Since his campaign pledge in 1992 to end welfare, the president has blocked every serious reform effort presented. Last year he vetoed important congressional block grant legislation, for which he had earlier indicated support, which would have given state and local governments more flexibility and control over reform efforts. And last week before a Senate panel, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala announced that the president will reject the National Governors Assn.'s bipartisan plan to salvage welfare reform this year. The president's words of reform offer up hope, but his actions betray us at our most desperate hour. California, like so many states, is hurting. Our social fabric is being ripped apart by federal welfare programs that discourage work, deprive citizens of self-respect and dignity, create long-term intergenerational dependency and compromise the well-being of our children. After $5.4 trillion spent over the last 30 years for social welfare, we now realize that the federal government's failed ``war on poverty'' has actually been a war on the values of its own citizens. We must replace the welfare system in California immediately, before we lose another generation of poor children. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration is standing in our way. In July 1994, California passed common-sense ``family cap'' welfare reform legislation to end the perverse practice of increasing payments to welfare recipients who have additional children. This practice usurps the role of husbands and drives men away from their families. But officials at the federal Department of Health and Human Services have denied the necessary federal waiver that would allow California to implement its law. Our citizens are being held hostage by the federal welfare system, and there is nothing we can do about it. How can we possibly move Californians into the work force when federal welfare programs pay them the equivalent of $11.59 an hour not to work? That's 270% more than they can earn with a full-time, minimum-wage job. And how can we discourage teenage girls from getting pregnant and dropping out of school when Washington tells them that for as long as they don't work, don't get married and don't live at home, the government will provide them with free money, free food and a free apartment? We must take matters into our own hands. California will soon pass the most sweeping welfare reform legislation in the nation's history. The plan will replace the current welfare system with temporary assistance that focuses on reuniting broken families and moving the abled-bodied back into jobs. The plan also removes disincentives to marriage, work and self-responsibility by establishing flat grants, no higher than minimum wage, that do not increase according to family size. After all, it is unfair to tax low-income working mothers whose wages are not based on family size and use the money to subsidize welfare recipients who choose to have more children. Fairness and self-reliance will be the cornerstones of California's new welfare system. But without federal approval, these reforms cannot be implemented. The president says that states must be given more flexibility to do the things they want to without seeking waivers. But by blocking reform efforts in Washington, the president has proved again that he cannot be trusted. California must be allowed to implement its welfare reform measures without seeking waivers. We will fight destructive federal welfare programs all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, until out citizens and families can once again set their own course for opportunity.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, the National Association of Private Industry Councils [NAPIC] will be in Washington, DC, on March 3 to open an important conference on improving America's work force. At this conference, well-deserved recognition will be given to Ruiz Food Products, Inc. for their progressive leadership and tireless efforts in enhancing our Nation's goal of a better educated labor force. As the 1996 recipient of NAPIC's Workforce Partnership Award, Ruiz Food Products located in California's Tulare County, has shown that its efforts to energize the area's commitment to develop job skills have not gone unnoticed. Ruiz Food Products, with the vision of individuals such as Fred Ruiz, has clearly forged the strategic partnerships with private industry councils necessary to lift up, in an era of downsizing, a sometimes discouraged work force. My hat's off to them since America is a better place for their efforts. Many of the unique and compassionate programs they have developed, such as on-site education and literacy enhancement centers, strike a ringing cord of commitment in a society increasingly silent on these matters. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend the recognition of this Congress to Ruiz Food Products' recent job well done.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, as an avid believer in the Constitution of the United States of America, I take particular pride in the diversity of our people and those who make use of the powers vested in our Constitution to make this country great. There are several people in my district who share in my desire to keep the minority community informed about issues at home and abroad. People such as Bee Vang, who interned in my office last summer, is now the anchor of Hmong TV USA and Uniting Hmong Radio. Rafael Hernandez, El Grafico newspaper director, keeps the Hispanic community abreast of issues with his weekly newspaper. Harout Sassounian, who has many ties with the large Armenian-American population in the district, is the publisher of the California Courier in Glendale, CA. Finally, there is Mark Kimber, who has made the California Advocate a reputable publication in Fresno for nearly three decades. Recently there was an article in The Fresno Bee, the leading newspaper in my congressional district, in which the writer, Karla Bruner, wrote about the minority media, and its impact on the 19th Congressional District. Her Journalistic talents and keen awareness of minority communities in the district make her account all the more informative. The press has played an important part in shaping our history and our great Nation. I salute the above mentioned people for their valuable contributions to the 19th District. I take pleasure in sharing the following article by Karla Bruner for the Fresno Bee: Minority Media Outlets Strive To Tell Their Side of the Story A handful of racial and ethnic groups in Fresno are practicing freedom of the press their way. Frustrated with mainstream media that they believe do not represent their ethnic community well or just do not speak the language, they have set up their own media groups. Joining this tradition will be The Hmong American Times, which will begin publishing Feb. 1. It will replace The Hmong Times, which began under another name in 1990. Locha Thao, the newspaper's new publisher, said he entered the business to help his community, not to make money. ``We need voices. We need a newspaper in our own language for the elders to understand,'' he said. Several thousand subscribers are expected to continue paying for the newspaper. Other copies are distributed free at Hmong stores and businesses. Thao echoes one of the main reasons why Hmong, Armenians, Hispanics and African-Americans run their own newspapers, television and radio programs. They do not want to be stereotyped. They want to maintain their identity. ``The black press has been an institution in our community for hundreds of years. We support our own media, tell our own story. It's a historical fact that the general media doesn't represent us,'' said Mark Kimber, publisher of the California Advocate newspaper in Fresno, a weekly publication that has served the African-American community for almost 29 years. It has 22,000 paid subscribers. Kimber said that many times when the mainstream media show African-Americans, they are being arrested. He said his newspaper tries to highlight the accomplishments of African- American lawyers and doctors. Bee Vang, an anchor for Asian Broadcasting, which airs Hmong-language programs on local television stations, knows Kimber's frustration. ``[The mainstream media] usually represent the worst side of the Hmong,'' he said. That does not mean journalists in the minority media represent their communities in a positive light only, he and others said. Vang said the Hmong program last year aired the story regarding the rape of a girl by Hmong youths, for example. ``The thing is, we talk to the leadership of the community,'' he said. ``Say we do a story and we talk to leaders to ask them how the [Hmong] culture is affected--then there's less of a negative response [to the story].'' Rafael Hernandez, director of El Grafico, a Spanish- language weekly in Fresno, said his newspaper is not afraid to go after anyone--even if they are Hispanic. About 20,000 copies of the newspaper are distributed at no charge in Fresno. ``We're not like big newspapers who are afraid of lawsuits. * * * We write what the people want,'' he said. Harut Sassounian, publisher of the California Courier, a 38-year-old English-language Armenian newspaper, said minority-run newspapers serve a special role. The California Courier was published in Fresno until 1988 and is now in Glendale. It has 3,000 paid subscribers. He said minority-run newspapers are like the ``village newspaper that is read by everybody.'' ``The Fresno Bee and New York Times aren't going to take a political position on every Armenian issue and people want direction,'' he said.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, on March 10, 1996, the central California chapter of the Armenian National Committee of America will be honoring Dr. Richard Hovanissian as Man of the Year. Dr. Hovanissian is a professor of Armenian and Near Eastern History, and Associate Director of the G.E. von Gruenebaum Center for Near Eastern Studies at the University of California at Los Angeles [UCLA]. As a member of the UCLA faculty since 1962, Dr. Hovanissian has played a major role in international forums relating to the study of genocide and Armenian history. As a Guggenheim Fellow, he has published more than 40 scholarly articles. Dr. Hovanissian has given more than 1,500 speeches and lectures to university, community, television, and radio audiences on a variety of topics. He has been a guest lecturer in more than 25 countries. In 1990, Dr. Hovanissian was elected to the Armenian Academy of Social Sciences, becoming the first social scientist living abroad to be so honored. Recently, at the invitation of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, he took part in a lecture series on ``Genocide and Mass Murder in the Twentieth Century.'' His presentation, ``The Armenian Genocide: An Eighty-year Perspective,'' reflected on the meaning of the Armenian experience today and its similarities and differences with other mass killings of this century. I wish to add my personal congratulations to Dr. Hovanissian on being selected as the Armenian National Committee's, Man of the Year. Dr. Hovanissian's accomplishments and work for the Armenian community deserve special commendation. I wish him my best for continued success.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, on March 8, 1996, the Nisei Farmers League will celebrate its 25th anniversary. This will be the closing of an era with Harry Kubo at the helm and the dawning of a new era with him handing over the reins to Manuel Cunha, Jr. Harry will be stepping down as president but will remain on the board as president ex-officio.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues an extraordinary program that began in government but has for the past 20 years been supported by the private sector to the benefit of millions of children in this country and countries around the world. Most particularly I wish to point with pride to the individual who has carried this splendid program forward from its beginning in a U.S. Justice Department agency in the 1970's to the worldwide anticrime program that is has become today. He is my constituent, Eugene Junette of Fresno, CA. The program that Mr. Junette has spearheaded since 1976 is Play It Safe, a crime prevention program launched by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration [LEAA] Office of Public Affairs in 1974 by its director, Malcolm Barr. Mr. Junette has asked that Mr. Barr, who retired Feb. 3, 1996, as an Associate Director of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce, following an illustrious 26-year government career, and other Federal Government officials who helped him--Wilbur Brantley, the late Cornelius Cooper, and Joseph Mulvey--share credit for this highly acclaimed program. Play It Safe is, in fact, a simple coloring book, originally approved by the U.S. Justice Department and various sheriffs, police, and juvenile justice organizations. It began in Mr. Barr's office on a shoestring budget and was visualized and developed by Mr. Barr and his small staff. When funds ran out, Mr. Barr approached Kiwanis International which agreed to promote, print, and distribute the booklet among preschool, kindergarten, and elementary school children in the United States, at no cost to the Government. Eugene Junette was appointed chairman. Under Mr. Junette's enthusiastic guidance, the Play It Safe program multiplied to all 50 States and into 61 foreign countries. The coloring book is translated into 31 languages. Thousands of volunteers now work with what has become Play It Safe International, Inc., whose address is 1289 N. Temperance Avenue, Fresno, CA 93727. Numerous service clubs and other nonprofit organizations are responsible for the distribution of some 26 million copies of the coloring book. Play It Safe, through Mr. Barr, used the nationally syndicated children's television program ``Romper Room'' in Baltimore, MD, to jump-start the project that I am told cost the American taxpayer no more than $20,000. As a result, millions of young children have been effectively educated about how to minimize criminal opportunities against themselves and their friends. Play It Safe volunteers have also helped develop a parent/teacher guide and home safety check list. Mr. Junette has dedicated the last 20 years of his life, often working 16 to 18 hour days, to help protect children from criminal activity. I join him in drawing attention to Mr. Barr, of Alexandria, VA, who he credits as the man with the vision to see the future possibilities of Play It Safe, not as a Government- sponsored project, but as a private sector program dedicated to the safety and wellbeing of children in this and many nations around the world. Mr. Barr described Play It Safe as a major accomplishment of his long Government career. I join his colleagues and friends wishing him well in his retirement. As the Play It Safe program completes its 20th year of private sector sponsorship, I wish to particularly salute my constituent Mr. Junette, and all the thousands of volunteers who have helped in furthering the Play It Safe project, and to point to this amazing display of volunteerism that I am proud to say has emanated from my congressional district for two decades.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, although some of us did not live World War II, we all are aware of its meaning. As a young boy, I remember my father, a World War II combat veteran himself, telling our family about the conflict and what it stood for. Now, in the Chowchilla News, a paper in my district, Jim Dumas, my constituent, has brilliantly told his recollection of World War II, as 1996 marks the 50th anniversary of this critical event in our Nation's history. It is my pleasure to share his article with my colleagues. America at War (By Jim Dumas) This year marks the 50th anniversary of the ending of the most expensive, deadly and devastating conflict the world has ever seen. When the war ended in Europe, Hitler and his people could look at the ruins of Germany and see the results of their wish to dominate all the world's people. When it ended in the Pacific, Japan lay in the ashes of two atom bombs which were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. People all over the world celebrated the surrender of the Axis nations, and those Americans who were serving overseas soon started home for a reunion with their loved ones and friends. This was the most expensive war in people and material lost and used in which our nation has been involved. The total cost of the nearly five years of fighting had cost the world almost two trillion dollars, and the lives of nearly 800 million people. The United States alone lost over 400 thousand men and women during this great conflagration. These figures tell a sad story of almost five years of war. The cost was very high when measured by any standard, but it brought almost a half century of peace and prosperity to most of the world. Paul A. Spera, National Commander-in-Chief, Veterans of Foreign Wars, writing in the California Veteran, December 1995, wrote these words, ``Because of the sacrifices of the more than 12 million Americans who served overseas and another four million who wore the uniform stateside, would-be dictators recognized that free men and women will fight and prevail when their freedoms are at stake. Because of their sacrifices, Americans were never forced to defend their own homes. ``As we enter our sixth decade of freedom and prosperity in America, it's important that we recall the pain and sacrifice of those who served to ensure that freedom . . . for each American soldier, sailor, Marine and airman who perished, there is an entire family whose lives were forever changed. And for each one that perished, there are thousands who returned from war, and whose lives have never been the same. ``When you see an elderly veteran, there's a good chance he or she served in World War II. If you are fortunate enough to hear them speak about what America means to them, please pay close attention. They have a perspective few of us share. They are rightfully proud of their service and the glory of their victory. However, they share a deeper and more profound perspective. ``You see, they know how it feels to face the reality of losing everything they had ever hoped for. They have dealt with the prospect of seeing their loved ones die, their nation's flag trampled and their homeland in ruins. Perhaps that is why our flag, their flag, is so important to them. That is why they deeply appreciate our Constitution and the institutions which serve under that document. ``They have paid a dear price so that all these things could endure. On these, the final days of the 50th commemoration of their war, we must remind ourselves that we owe them a debt which can never be repaid.'' How could anyone say it better? When I read those words, I knew I had to pass them on to you. I don't know if Commander Spera is a veteran of WWII or not, but I like what he said. My generation suffered the greatest casualties of any one generation which has fought in our many wars. I just hope future generations will not allow historians to sanitize the history of WWII to suit their present day thinking. That is why we need more veterans to write what it was really like so the school children of today and tomorrow will know the real truth of the entire war period. With this episode, the ``America At War'' series comes to a close. My friend, John Wolfshorndl, recently made a 17-day visit to China. He brought back many pictures and has agreed to lend them to me and this newspaper so you may see what that nation is like today. Many of his pictures show it much the same as when I was there in 1942-43. Some changes for the better have taken place. He went to many places I did not get to see, such as the Great Wall. He did bring some pictures of Kweilin (Guilin) and Kunming where I was stationed during WWII. He has some good pictures of the very unusual mountains around Kweilin of which I have written before. The editor has promised me two half-pages so we may show you these pictures. My heart is heavy as I bring this series to a close. I really don't know why, but as I type this, I find it impossible to keep back the tears. Perhaps no one else will understand it either. Writing this series of articles has been like reliving it all over again. This isn't the first time tears have come to my eyes as I wrote them. I've heard all my life that ``There is no fool like an old fool.'' Maybe an old sentimental fool is even worse. I am a sentimentalist, and some may say I am all of the above. So many of you have asked if I was writing these articles for a diary. The answer is no. I did not keep a diary while in China because I never even thought about writing about my experiences while I was there. These have been written from memory. Again, many of you have asked how in the world I could remember all this stuff. I don't know. I have just written it as I remember it. I'm sure there are some who might take exception to some of the things I've written. No two people see things exactly the same. I guess these things have been deeply embedded into the wrinkles of my brain or I couldn't have remembered them. The editor, Jess Chambers, has asked me to continue writing for him on several subjects. I plan to do that as long as people like and read what I write. I love writing and wish I had gone to journalism school right after I retired. There are many things about which I have very strong opinions and could write about. I travel a lot and could write about those trips and the interesting places my wife and I visit. That would not be controversial, whereas, my opinions about other things could be. But first, I think I would like to take a little rest. However, I see things everyday in various newspapers and magazines about which I would like to write. Maybe I can write a few and not have to meet a deadline. I don't really enjoy having to do that. One of the things which Jess asked me to write about is vacation spots where people can go and be outdoors and camp without it costing them an arm and a leg. Since I own a little recreation type land in northeast California, I could write a few of those already. But I would need to go to those places and take some pictures to be printed along with the articles. So, you may see some more of my writing in this paper following the last of these articles. Anyway, before I close, I must say that I am proud to have been able to fly and fight with the great Flying Tigers, even though I was only attached to them for training. It was a great organization and a fine group of men to be with. It is an honor to have been around such men as Tex Hill, Ed Rector, Charley Bond, Joe Rosbert and Bill Bartling, to name a few. When I first met them, I thought they were all ``Supermen,'' which they were, but when the 14th Air Force took over from the AVG, we had some ``Supermen'' among us. Men like Charles DuBois, Mortimer Dog Marks, Patrick H. Daniels III, Johnny Alison and others. Most of all, I'm proud I got to know personally the man most responsible for the success of both organizations, General Claire Lee Chennault. It was a pleasure serving under him. I was honored to have been asked to be one of his honor guard at his homecoming in New Orleans. Now I'd like to quote from another veteran's magazine, The American Legion, September 1995. There was no byline or I would give credit to the writer. It is called ``The Road to Victory.'' ``America's triumph in WWII was so much more than a military victory. It was a victory that energized democracies around the world, primed the economy at home and secured the continuation of the American way of life. There are no words that can bestow enough honor upon those who served, but WWII veterans know how important their contribution has been and continues to be. We must be sure that future generations never forget their bravery, sacrifice and service to our country. WWII veterans have earned our eternal gratitude.'' Amen. Finally, I'd like to thank the Chowchilla News, the owners and Jess Chambers, editor, for their confidence in me, and for publishing these articles. They were the first. And my thanks to all who telephoned, wrote me, and told me personally that you enjoyed them. You have no idea how much that has meant to me. You may not believe this, but I have never received a derogatory remark about them from anyone. Not one. There must be some who didn't like them enough to read them, and to them I would like to say, thanks for not telling me. I close wishing all of you good health throughout 1996, and may it be the best year ever for each and every one of you.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, all too often our public schools are dominated by a bloated bureaucracy unresponsive to the needs of families and local communities. The more we can return effective control over education to localities, Mr. Speaker, the more we can enhance the active involvement of parents in our public schools, curb costs and bureaucracy, and ensure that our children leave school equipped with the adequate knowledge and skills to play their full part in American society. The Clovis Unified School District [CUSD] in my congressional district, makes a welcome contrast to this grim picture. Superintendent Walter Buster, building on the foundations laid by the CUSD's first superintendent, Floyd V. Buchanan, has demonstrated that public schools can provide a good education without inflated costs and with maximum parental involvement. The CUSD works actively with its local community and is responsive to it. It therefore gives me great pleasure to present the following article by Christopher Garcia, published in the latest issue of Policy Review: The Journal of American Citizenship (January/February 1996). Humble Clovis Defies the Education Visigoths In 507 A.D., at Vouille in present-day France, the King of the Franks led a band of warriors against the Visigoths, the marauding barbarians who had sacked Rome a century earlier. The king, named Clovis, defeated the Visigoths and broke their hold on Europe. Today, a modern namesake--the Clovis Unified School District (CUSD), in Fresno, California--is successfully defying another ominous empire: the education establishment. Despite serving a significant portion of Fresno's urban poor, Clovis is proving that public schools can deliver a good education with a small budget and minimal bureaucracy. Clovis has long ignored the prevailing cant about the need for high spending and huge bureaucratic machinery to regulate public education. During the 1993-94 school year, CUSD spent $3,892 per pupil; school districts nationwide averaged $5,730. The district's student-to-administrator ratio is 520:1--nearly twice the national average. And although similarly sized districts (like those in Rochester, New York, and Madison, Wisconsin), typically house 300 to 400 employees in their central office, CUSD employs just 167. With no teachers union or Parent Teachers Association (PTA), CUSD is a rarity among public schools. In this case, less means more--more students performing above average across a broad range of measures. The district's average score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) is 52 points higher than the state average and 42 points higher than the national average. CUSD's mean composite score on the American College Test (ACT) stands respectably at the 65th percentile. In 1995, with a senior cohort of 1,606, CUSD students passed 720 Advanced Placement (AP) exams. Perhaps one reason Clovis kids out perform their peers is that they show up for class more often: The district's high- school attendance rate is nearly 95 percent, and its drop-out rate is only 4 percent. The district doesn't skimp on its extracurricular offerings, either. More than 80 percent of Clovis students participate in one of the most successful programs in California. Last year, the district earned a championship at the National Future Farmers of America Convention and sent its state-champion Odyssey of the Mind team to compete in the world finals. Many Clovis children are among the most disadvantaged in the region. Nearly 40 percent of the district's students live in Fresno City. Six of CUSD's elementary schools enroll enough AFDC children to qualify for direct financial assistance from the federal government. And five schools have student bodies with more than 50 percent minorities. In 1989, the median household income of the community surrounding Pinedale Elementary School was $10,000 below the national median of $28,906. And yet Mexican-Americans, who make up the district's largest minority (about 18 percent of all students), outperform their State and national counterparts on the ACT by significant margins. Created in 1960 from the merger of seven rural, low-income school districts, CUSD presented its first superintendent, Floyd V. Buchanan, with a significant challenge: Barely more than one in three of the district's 1,843 students performed at grade level. Buchanan wanted to push this figure to 90 percent--but how? Put simply: competition, control, and consequences. Buchanan reasoned that schools would not be spurred to meet the goals that he and the central administration set for them unless they competed against one another in academic and extracurricular achievement. He established goals for each of the system's 11 schools at the start of the year, ranked them according to their performance at year's end, and established a system of carrots and sticks (mostly carrots). Most importantly, administrators and teachers were allowed to choose the teaching methods and curricula they felt suited their objectives. This formula, in place for decades, has allowed the district--now with 30 schools and 28,000 students--to place between 70 and 90 percent of its students at grade level. Competition in the district exists at several levels. Earning a rating as a top school is its own reward, but the district recognizes high achievement in other ways. The top schools on the elementary, intermediate, and high-school levels are recognized at an annual, districtwide award ceremony. The district's best teachers and administrators are honored at a dinner. And the school's achievements are reported to parents and the community in the pages of the district's publications. The friendly, competitive culture at Clovis clearly has helped drive achievement. Because a school's performance at a districtwide choral competition or drama fair influences its ratings, teachers, students, and administrators work hard to give their routines the extra edge needed to push ahead of their colleagues. Schools borrow the winning strategies used elsewhere. Students at Clovis West High School, for example, often score better on SATs and AP exams than those at Clovis High School, so Clovis High has borrowed test-preparation tips from Clovis West. Clovis High is also trying to improve discipline by looking at successful techniques employed at Buchanan High. Competition, however, would produce little without local decision-making. Anticipating trends that would revolutionize America's Fortune 500 companies, Buchanan made flexible, decentralized, site-based management a fundamental feature of the school system in 1972. The district office has been responsible for setting goals and establishing guidelines, but schools have worked to meet these goals in their own ways. ``They give us the what and we figure out the how,'' says Kevin Peterson, the principal of Tarpey Elementary School. When officials at Pinedale Elementary School determined that parent participation there was lower than at other schools, for example, they realized that immigrant parents felt locked out by language barriers. So they created ``family nights'' to help these parents take part in their children's education. With their children present, the parents are taught games and devices they can use at home to help their children with their homework. The result: Immigrant parents now participate more. Such innovation is easier in the absence of teacher unions. For example, the district deploys teachers weekly to the homes of about 100 recently arrived immigrants to provide them English-language instruction and to help them build a bridge to their rapidly assimilating children. Meredith Ekwall, a first-grade teacher at Weldon Elementary School, teaches English at night to the parents of her ESL students to encourage English use in the home. In districts where collective-bargaining agreements stipulate precisely how much time teachers spend teaching, micromanage the amount of time teachers can devote to activities outside of the classroom, and dictate what a district can and cannot ask its teachers to do, such flexibility and voluntarism is rare. Along with teacher autonomy and greater parent access, Clovis strives for accountability. All the teachers, without exception, are expected to bring 90 percent of their students up to grade level. If they do not, everyone knows about it. The district's research and evaluation division notifies teachers, parents, and administrators of school and student performance. And with curriculum development and teacher hiring and firing in the schools' hands, knowledge is power. The approach has ``made every teacher accountable,'' says Redbank Elementary School Principal Susan VanDoren. ``[I]t made me sit down and look at all those kids [needing help] and ask, `What can we do? '' Parents seem more likely to ask that question in Clovis than in other school districts. Parents and other community members (including the clergy, senior citizens, and businessmen) sit on advisory boards, where they review individual school performance and formulate policy. Last year, some parents were upset that children were required to read feminist author Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. Parents forged an agreement with the district that allows them to review books assigned to their children and help develop alternatives. Other boards recently voted to institute a voluntary uniform and a fee- based home-to-school transportation program. Teams of parents issue critiques of schools on the basis of data culled from parent surveys; these reviews are posted in every staff room in the district. These boards function the way PTAs are meant to, but without the stifling hand of teacher-union influence. ``The reason for the success of Clovis,'' says Superintendent Walter Buster, ``is that these schools are truly governed by elected lay people.'' Ultimately, it seems, success in CUSD is driven by community expectations. ``There's a corporate culture that has been established that requires more of people, expects of people more, and gets of people more,'' says H.P. Spees, executive director of Fresno-Madeira Youth for Christ and member of CUSD's clergy advisory council. This culture of expectation is impressed upon teachers even before they pick up a piece of chalk. A lengthy, multi-tiered interview process incorporates parents, teachers, community leaders, principals, and administrators and signals to prospective teachers that the Clovis community demands much of its teachers. According to Ginger Thomas, the principal of Temprance-Kutner Elementary School, some teacher candidates quit the interview process, saying ``you guys work too hard.'' Assistant superintendent Jon Sharpe contends that Clovis sustains ``a work ethic in the public sector that's almost unsurpassed.'' He may be right: In 1992, CUSD, teachers even voted down their own pay raise to channel the money into books and supplies. In an education system under assault for its academic failures, Clovis has produced a winning formula. CUSD schools have won recognition by the state of California 15 times and earned national blue ribbons from the U.S. Department of Education 13 times. The prestigious Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research has featured Clovis in two works, Clovis California Schools: A Measure of Excellence and Total Quality Education. Even outspoken critics of public education recognize the district's accomplishments. ``If we are going to limit ourselves to the Prussian system of education, Clovis is the best we are going to get in a tax-financed school,'' says Marshall Fritz, the founder of the Fresno-based Separation of School and State Alliance and the father of four Clovis students. Awards aside, the real lesson of Clovis is that good education depends not on bloated budgets but on creative and committed teachers and administrators held accountable by engaged communities. Clovis's success also suggests that quality in public education will not be the norm until resources are channeled to classrooms rather than bureaucrats, and parents wrest control over education from teachers unions.