George Radanovich

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I am a Republican freshman and I am very proud of it. I made a decision recently to not pass continuing resolutions until we got the President to deal realistically about a balanced budget scored in 7 years. However, upon that decision, that led to the closure of Yosemite National Park in my district. Not only do my Federal employees suffer, but also the communities of Mariposa, Oakhurst, Coarsegold, Three Rivers, and Auberry. Private property owners, private businessmen who are not being, who will not be repaid, one motel owner Jerry Fisher has lost a quarter of a million dollars so far. I am proud of what I am doing and what I stand for. My community is suffering. I ask my colleagues to override this veto. This is a reasonable bill. It is a fair compromise. It should not be used as a pawn in this game. I want this bill overridden.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. It is good to be here tonight with a fine bunch of gentlemen on both sides of the aisle, and, you know, I had the opportunity to be in the Chamber during the time when the--when my colleagues were discussing the current shutdown that we are in and the events that led up to it, and I found myself puzzled to really not hear much mention of the importance of the Congressional Budget Office calculating these budgets, and not so much the CBO, but one office doing this, doing these calculations, and you know the thing that really surprises me the most is that on November 20 an agreement was signed between the legislature and the executive branch, and in that commitment was a proposal that was to be developed by the White House that was to be sent to the Congress that would balance the budget in 7 years according to CBO numbers, and in those things would be priorities of Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment. It is very, very difficult, and I think people cannot understand this budget process. I mean I have been here 11 months, and I have watched this process, and I have had the opportunity to watch it first hand, but the average American does not get that ability, and I am sure what they see here in this process is so mind boggling, and part of it is because, if you and I are negotiating a budget on two sets of books, you may as well be speaking Chinese, and I may as well be speaking Croatian, none of it is going to be making sense, and yet this is the way we have operated in this Chamber for 40 years, so that people can say, yes, I want to protect this program and I am only going to spend this much according to these numbers, and this party over here can say I want to accomplish the same thing, but I can, you know, be this or--I can do it in such a certain way that I can be nicer about it. And unfortunately the world does not work that way, and I would, you know, I would say to every American right now that nobody in their right mind would want to discuss or negotiate a budget based on two sets of books. It just does not work. It just does not work. That is why we are so insistent about using one agency, the Congressional Budget Office. So if the President, and going back to the November 20 agreement where he decided, if the President has in his priorities, and I think we all have those same priorities of protecting Medicaid, Medicare, protecting the environment, and also education, then why did he not submit a budget that balanced by the Congressional Budget Office that proved that with those resources he could protect those programs and have his own sets of priorities in them? Instead, what he did was that he got the 7-year part right, and he got just about nothing else right, because he did not score it according to the CBO, and all his priorities in his way put us out of balance by $365 billion at the end of 7 years. This is not logical and this does not make sense. That is why we here are saying our priorities are a 7-year balanced budget, scored by CBO, and then we are going to concentrate on deficit reduction. But how can you even think of affecting that number right there that is beside you without using a common set of books so we are all speaking the same language? Once you have that, then we have constructive dialog.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield just briefly on that one point. My comments were pertinent to your remarks, and I cannot stress too much the concept of dealing squarely off of on set of books. Because when we try to tackle this number here and we try to balance this budget, and we are really serious about doing it, our options become severely limited. Once the executive and the legislative branch are committed to one set of numbers, the demagoguery stops and the heavy lifting starts. Unfortunately, we have not seen heavy lifting from the executive branch of this government in dealing with this issue. That is why we are here today, very likely to even spend Christmas Day in this legislature, waiting for the President to make good on his commitment, his promise, to submit a balanced budget scored by CBO, using common ground, which is apples-to-apples comparison, which is CBO numbers.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Just briefly, I want to say that negotiating off the same set of books for the first time will get us into constructive debate on balancing the budget. We have not had constructive debate up until this time.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Neumann, would you care to reiterate the results of the last shutdown, and what was the agreement made by the administration, and how they would submit their next budget?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin very much for bringing this information. I want to say briefly that our priorities in this process in defending, to a degree, the increase in the debt even under our plan, is that we are committed right now with priorities of a 7-year balanced budget; the second being CBO scoring, which we are still working on; the third being the quick elimination of the deficit and the debt. Unfortunately, under our plan, while we are working at eliminating the deficit, we are unfortunately still adding to the debt. But after that deficit is gone, then the debt gets worked down.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I want to point out, then, because the gentleman's example here perfectly illustrates the frustration that we are experiencing in Washington when we make a pledge to the American people, many of us who are here for the first time, that we are going to go back and balance the budget, and then we run into a game of charades basically, in order to drum up phony numbers so that we can live up to our obligations made with regard to balancing the budget in 7 years. So, unfortunately, I think through this process, if there is any good that can come out of it, would be commitments made and kept, but also honest numbers. Because that is really what is driving, I think, the American people nuts and driving this whole controversy right now.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. RADANOVICH. So too in my district. When we faced the recent Government shutdown, I represent fortunately an area that has three national parks, Yosemite, Kings and Sequoia National Parks. Putting Federal employees out of work and giving them time off, they get paid. They worry a little bit, but they get retroactive pay. But in my district the people that suffered were those who depend on the tourist economies in these small communities, the one I was born and raised in, Mariposa, other communities, Oakhurst and Sonora, those areas, those businesses suffered. I had people that suffered a 50-percent loss in revenues during that period of time. Still, the amount of response that I got during that time was at nine to one, ``stay the course.'' And what they called to say was that they are not buying this, because, thank God for Rush Limbaugh and C-SPAN, these people, the everyday American can spot somebody who is not telling the truth. They are much more educated than before. This may have worked over the last 40 years, but it is not working today. So I have got faith in people. When I walk down and talk to transportation, parcel post deliverers, and their on-line employees, basically their message to me was, ``George, don't bother coming home if you lose this budget battle.'' They say ``Hang in there.'' They know exactly what is going on.

Mr. RADANOVICH. My first comment on this is that, you know, if this was the advertising program of a private corporation, they would be in court right now pending lawsuits against them for truth-in-advertising. I know you did not vote to cut Medicare, because I voted the same as you, and I did not vote to cut Medicare. There is not a person in this Chamber here who voted to cut Medicare. We voted to increase spending on Medicare by 50 percent over a 7-year period from the current $4,800 per beneficiary to at least $6,700 per beneficiary over 7 years. Now, I do not know what kind of an idiot these people think the American people are, but that is not a cut. The American people are smarter than that. I would also like to comment on the fact that this Congress has not been working for working families, because we spend more than we take in. I would like to challenge any one of you to try to make sense about how we can be for working families while we cannot even balance our own budget, while we are deliberately spending more money than we are taking in. That is not good for families.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I represent the 19th District in California, and in that district is included Yosemite National Park, Kings and Sequoia National Parks. I understand the magnitude of balancing a budget and coming to shutdowns and agreements, where we have really got to get our act together fiscally and budgetarily. What I do not agree with is when innocent citizens are caught in the way of a government shutdown, such as the communities of Oakhurst, Aubury, Three Rivers, and Mariposa, those communities whose interests depend heavily on tourism generated by these national parks. It is for that reason that I support this bill. Those involved in government, those that hang their hat on government, government employees, this body, those people are the ones that should suffer the consequences of a Federal Government unable to function and unable to come to agreements on a 7-year balanced budget scored by CBO; not people in small communities whose economies thrive on open national parks. It is for that reason I support this bill.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, thank God we are all in the same arena finally with the 7-year balanced budget scored by CBO. For the first time we are comparing applies to apples, not apples to oranges. I think that is terrific. Now that we are doing that, we need to recognize two things. We need to ask these two things: First, should the Federal Government be doing everything that it is doing right now, and if not, let us figure out how to privatize it. If we should be, let us figure out how to localize it. From there we can go into the budget, cut what needs to be cut, freeze what needs to be frozen, eliminate what needs to be eliminated, and slow the rate of growth for certain programs that need a slowed rate of growth. The reason why I say this is because we have been doing that since January. The result of this is contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. That is why I support it.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa, Chairman Lightfoot, the gentleman from California, Mr. Dooley, and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, if I may. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Courthouse in Fresno is currently at its full capacity and requires extensive modifications to meet seismic, fire, and security standards. Moreover, Fresno is the fastest growing city in America, has the largest population per judgeship of any U.S. judicial district, and faces an explosion in federally filed claims. We need a new courthouse and have been working to obtain approval for the past few years. I understand that there is no funding provided for the courthouse in this year's Treasury, Postal appropriations bill, and I realize the dramatic spending reductions we all must make to work toward a balanced budget. I do want to let my colleague, Mr. Lightfoot, know, however, of actions taken in Fresno in response to directions from his subcommittee last year. The fiscal year 1995 Treasury, Postal appropriations conference report contained language that acknowledged the beginning of the site selection process for a Federal courthouse in Fresno, and directed GSA to locate the site in the downtown area of Fresno. I am pleased to report that not only did we locate a site in the downtown area, but that the city of Fresno is committing to donate the site. In addition, the city has offered to complete all site preparation and build public parking for the courthouse. I would also ask that the chairman also consider that the GSA has completed a facility study showing the need for the courthouse, accepted an environmental impact study, and has selected an architect for the site. This agreement will save the taxpayers about $5 million. I urge the subcommittee to make this project a top priority next year in light of our compliance with the chairman's directive and also their effort to reduce Federal spending.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, on the sad occasion of Yitzhak Rabin's tragic death, I convey my deepest condolences to the nation of Israel. Mr. Speaker, as you and other world leaders return from a mourning Israel, I am certain you appreciate that Yitzhak Rabin's sudden death must not overshadow his prosperous life. The fallen leader now rests peacefully alongside other greats in Israel's history, comforted by the cypress and pine of Mount Herzel Cemetery. As this and future generations visit the cemetery, I am hopeful they will be struck by the peace of the setting which befits his most enduring legacy. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the following letter written to Ambassador Rabinovich be included in the Record. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, November 6, 1995. Hon. Itamar Rabinovich, Ambassador of Israel, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Ambassador: On behalf of those I have the honor to represent in the 19th District of California, I wish to express our most sincere sympathy to the people of Israel on the loss of your leader, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. There is little I can add to the expressions of mourning-- many of them so movingly eloquent--that have been heard from around the world. Indeed, I find my own feelings voiced best by what two others have said. ``The best memorial for Yitzhak Rabin is to continue what he started, which is the peace process. Only through our unwavering commitment to this objective can we truly honor the memory of this fallen hero of peace.''--President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. ``The Jewish people, who go back a long way, have always been inspired by fallen heroes like Yitzhak Rabin to reaffirm their faith.''--William Safire, New York Times columnist. To the end that our world no longer shall experience the painful cost of war, let us keep always before us the example of [[Page H 11849]] Yitzhak Rabin's courage, vision, and commitment to peace. In sympathy, George P. Radanovich, Member of Congress.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am proud to be associated with all three of you gentlemen here today, to talk about what has happend in the last year since our eve of election about a year ago today. I, too, spent the weekend going home and traveling in the district and making many stops. I stopped in Lemon Cove, the Sequoia Middle School, to address the 7th, 8th, and 9th graders. In particular, a lot of the message that I state, and of course, being on the Committee on the Budget we deal with budget issues, and I talk budget issues there, and I go home and I explain what we are really doing as far as reform and expanding the Medicare system and offering choices, and limiting government, decentralizing government, privatizing government, localizing government through the budget process. They all realize, too, that we are coming to the point now where there are threats of a budget train wreck, and there is the issue about raising the debt ceiling, and a standoff between the Congress and the administration, the executive branch. By and large, people are concerned in general. The bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, and I think it can be articulated, in one of my Monday morning meetings I met with the Parcel Post Service in Fresno, which is a distribution center; I met with about 100 truck drivers and the management of this company, who presented a $25,000 check to the West Fresno Christian Academy for them to be able to fix their restroom floors. I was honored to be in the middle of this presentation. I was able to speak and give them an idea of what we were doing. I explained to them with regard to the upcoming brinksmanship that we are in now with the budget, in that we had not too long ago, last week, four experts from Wall Street sit down and talk to our Republican conference and deliver a very strong message, and the message was that even if we have to go through short-term economic disheveling in order to get a balanced budget, [[Page H 11817]] that it is worth it for the future economic health of this country to go through something short term, if we have to. It is imperative to get a legitimate balanced budget passed this year. That was the message that the Wall Street Journal experts, I think, conveyed to all of us. I took that message home and explained to my group of employees there at United Parcel Service, and the message got applause when I said this is what Wall Street was willing to come up and say: ``If there is brinksmanship here, let all the stops go, but just make sure you get a balanced budget.'' Their message to me was ``Do not come home without a balanced budget.'' They are serious. They want government out of their face. This budget begins that process. It does that. The response that I get from people in my district is just leave me alone, let me run my own life, do not try to be my mommy, do not try to be my daddy, do not try to be my pastor, and do not try to be my employer. That is really the message that I come back with. Basically, Mr. Speaker, they sent me back here saying if I drop the ball, do not come back to Fresno. They are that serious about it. My commitment is that, that we pass a legitimate balanced budget, one that is scored by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the legitimate scoring agency in the House here; not by the Office of Management and Budget, like the administration wants their budget scored.

Mr. RADANOVICH. If the gentleman from Arizona will yield, the point that you bring up and also the point that the gentleman from Texas brings up are very good examples of I think some of the changes that we want to see coming down in the next few years. One thing, the biggest lesson I think that I learned being exposed to the national budget for the first time in January and the learning process that I went through is that this is a journey of 1,000 miles that begins with one step, and this budget truly is one step. Now, you had mentioned one thing in particular, and that is the role of charity in government and how it got there, and how the one thing that we are going to have to learn when we are budgeting is if there is a need, it should not always be presented to government. I think that if you will look a little more closely in a few other books, the role of Good Samaritian was found in the Bible, not in the Constitution, and yet this is a responsibility that government is for some reason deemed necessary to pick up over the last few years, When something is not inherently someone's responsibility, that person is not going to do a very good job with that responsibility, as evidenced by what government has done with charity, via welfare, during these last 30, 40 years.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the only thing that I would add to the comments of the gentleman from Arizona is that the hope is, too, that looking out even a little farther, is that some day that dollar, that education dollar that we send down to Casa Grande will never have to leave Casa Grande to come to Washington in the first place. So that as you well know, and I think we articulated, that dollar on its round trip to Washington and back to Arizona loses a lot on the way, and if we get to the point where we eliminate the deficit and we pay off the debt and start shifting these taxing responsibilities down to the State and local level, if Casa Grande wants its education dollars to go to the State and local government, raise your taxes and fund your own programs there.

Mr. RADANOVICH. What I can relate is that we met with--on a number of occasions Alan Greenspan with the Federal Reserve met with the Committee on the Budget, and in that, he expressed supreme confidence in two things: No. 1, that business, health, and the economy and the country was directly related to our good intentions, and we had better prove it all out in passing a balanced budget, but the effect of that would have a minimum of a 2-percent decrease in interest rates. So that is something that comes from the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and backed, actually, by scoring in the budget that we have right before us today. I want to make one brief comment. That is that people in America have to be really concerned about what their representatives say and what kind of numbers they quote. The best example I can give is the Congressional Budget Office is the legitimate scoring agency for budgets in town, and everybody, including the OMB, recognizes that the CBO is the more legitimate scorer. If you take the President's 10-year budget that balances to the CBO and have it scored, it still has annual deficits of $60 billion.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, this week the American Banker called its readers' attention to top agricultural leader, and banker, Tom Stenson. As a farmer and a former banker myself, I agree with Stenson as he talks of the importance of agriculture to banking, and of water to valley agriculture. In order for my colleagues to better understand this issue, I take pleasure in sharing with you the article: [From the American Banker, Oct. 30, 1995] Water Greases Ag Lending in Arid Central California (By Barbara F. Bronstien) Fresno, CA.--Agricultural lending in central California's San Joaquin Valley, with its more than 250 crops, from cotton to nuts to vegetables, has been a whole new world to a farm lender originally from Iowa. ``The diversity is just amazing here, compared to other agriculture areas in the country,'' said Tom Stenson, senior vice president of Fresno-based Valliwide Bank, who heads the company's agribusiness group. ``The only limiting factor is water.'' Water, clearly, is something agricultural lenders cannot take lightly in the West, where irrigation is king and rainfall limited. If farm customers don't have an affordable plan to procure water, their business is a no-go. ``This area would be a desert without irrigation,'' said David Pruitt, a customer of Mr. Stenson's who manages 2,000- acre Santa Rita Ranch in nearby Merced County. California farmers get their water from two sources: underground wells on site and surface delivery systems controlled by the state's numerous irrigation districts. Farmers historically have had long-term contracts with the government for water rights through these districts. When lenders evaluate a prospective farm loan, water sources and costs are among their top questions. ``It is always a major concern to anybody here in California who is a lender,'' said Michael C. McFadden, assistant vice president of $50 million-asset Kings River State Bank, Reedley, Calif., whose agricultural customers mainly grow fruit trees and grapes. ``We need to see that they've got water. Without water, they're dead.'' Speeding by the fruit and nut trees lining the highways of the western San Joaquin Valley, Mr. Stenson explained how his $1.2 billion-asset bank and other western agricultural lenders deal with the water issue when evaluating loan requests. Lenders want to know where the operation is located, the source and cost of its water supply, and any past water problems, particularly during the seven-year drought that lasted through the 1993-94 growing season. He or his department's other six agricultural lenders also examine income and expenses and require a water plan from prospects in areas without shallow underground water sources. In addition, nonlender farm experts on staff or third-party analysts evaluate crops and equipment. ``Otherwise, you run the risk as a lender of financing the planting of a crop * * * and halfway through the season, the guy runs out of water,'' Mr. Stenson said. ``Then, you're stuck with only one alternative, and that's to fund the purchase of very expensive water. Or, the other choice is to let the crop go. Then where are you?'' Cindy Nicoletti, a partner in the Santa Rita Ranch, said that lenders' increasing concerns have meant more documentation for her operation to procure the $500,000 to $700,000 a year it borrows in production loans. ``We wouldn't do a lot of it if we didn't have to because of the lending,'' Ms. Nicoletti said. `We have to ensure the bank that we are doing all of the right things.'' Lenders have paid even closer attention in recent years as farmers' water costs have escalated. ``All farmers have had significant capital expenditures in the last five years to either make their existing water go farther or to gain additional water,'' Mr. Stenson said. ``And that ripples through their balance sheet.'' Some customers have changed to potentially higher-return but riskier crops in an effort to cover rising water costs, he said. For instance, they'll switch from cotton to something like tomatoes or peppers. ``To us as lenders, we're concerned because traditionally fresh market vegetables tend to be very cyclical,'' Mr. Stenson said. ``You can make a bundle or you can lose your shirt in one year, which is not the case with cotton or other more standard crops.'' At Valliwide, whose agribusiness group targets farms loans of $500,000 to $2 million and whose branch network does smaller agricultural loans, ``no loan has been collected as a result of water or lack of,'' said Mr. Stenson, who previously worked for the Farm Credit System in Iowa, New England, and Nebraska before moving to Fresno eight years ago. He joined Valliwide two and a half years ago. ``I know of others, through loan requests that we have had that we denied, that clearly the stress, the high-priced water, and the drought have put them on the brink of destruction.'' To compound matters, farmers are just one of three interests that continue to vie for the state's water, along with communities, such as the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and environmentalists. And the tug-of-war may not bode well for farmers. ``We have water rights here, and we have been assaulted from all directions'' by people trying to take them, said Mr. Pruitt of Santa Rita Ranch. In some cases the government wants to renegotiate farmers' long-term water contracts, Mr. Stenson said. ``That sends shivers up the spine of a lender.'' The thought of Angelinos, and others who far outnumber farmers, clamoring for their water frightens many lenders in the state's agricultural belt. ``They want it to fill their swimming pools; we want it for our farmers,'' said James C. Holly, president of Bank of the Sierra, Porterville, Calif., who had an ominous prediction for farmers: ``They're going to get it.''

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, a respected leader of California's agriculture community, Bill Mattos, has hit the nail on the head. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the rule he rightly ridicules is one that tolerates as fresh chicken sold to consumers that is frozen so stiff it could drive nails. For the enlightenment of our colleagues and to illustrate once again the folly of letting frozen masquerade as fresh, because that is what Government says, I take pleasure in presenting the following editorial expression by Mr. Mattos that was published in the Capital Press Agriculture Weekly on October 27, 1995. Poultry Label Charade Confirms Public's Cynicism About Politics (By Bill Mattos) When is a frozen chicken fresh? One newspaper says, ``When it's got the political muscle of the 800-pound gorilla that is the poultry lobby.'' I guess that's the same frozen poultry thawed on its way to California from some of the nation's largest poultry processors. Believe it or not, Congress spent more than four hours recently debating chicken labeling, then barred the U.S. Department of Agriculture from enforcing truth in labeling. Congress just doesn't get it. Voter anger, so visibly demonstrated in the last two federal elections, was not simply about one party vs. the other. Rather, it was directed at the status quo--a sense that in Washington, the concerns of deep-pocketed special interests outweigh the common good. Recent action in both the House and Senate shows the lengths members will go to please special interests. In the midst of hefty debate on a welfare ``revolution'' and Medicare ``overhaul,'' Congress found it necessary to vote on whether chicken that has been frozen to rock-solid temperatures can be thawed and called ``fresh.'' After weeks of serious debate, with California's representatives arguing the merits of freshness, Congress decided that yes, indeed, it should be legal to label defrosted poultry as ``fresh.'' This legislative squawking is ludicrous. But it means serious, added profits to a few big chicken producers in the Southeast who use these ``fresh'' labels to sell chicken to unsuspecting consumers nationwide at a higher price. Consumers who buy fresh food believe it has never been frozen. That's why USDA officials in August announced that chicken producers can no longer put deceptive ``fresh'' labels on poultry that has been iced to below 26 degrees, and subsequently thawed for sale in grocery stores. USDA policymakers didn't create this rule overnight. Two years ago, they began studying the issue. They tested the freezing point of poultry--and discovered the meat becomes crystallized at 26 degrees. They held field hearings in cities throughout the country. They drafted a rule and published it in the Federal Register to solicit public comments. And the public responded: USDA's mailbox received thousands of letters from irate consumers, all of the leading consumer advocacy organizations, as well as chefs, who felt the rule was important enough for them to write in. Congress held its own hearings, which included testimony by noted chef Wolfgang Puck, who pounded a so-called ``fresh'' chicken that was rock-solid on a table in front of a House committee. Members participated in chicken bowling with ``fresh'' chickens that were hard as bowling balls. The point consumers were trying to make was simple: A ``fresh'' chicken has never been frozen. Shoppers in search of fresh vegetables bypass the freezer case and go to the produce department. Likewise, those in search of fresh seafood head straight for the lobster tank. So why on earth did the Senate vote to provide an exception for poultry? The answer: It puts lots of dollars in the pockets of giant poultry corporations in a few states like Arkansas and Mississippi, and costs 40 cents to $2 more per pound for consumers who buy this ``fresh'' (actually, thawed) chicken. Southeastern senators whose constituents include the largest chicken-producing conglomerates went to the Senate floor to say it was them vs. California, a state where consumers purchase lots of fresh chicken. Maybe they had a point--but only on the Senate floor. Off the Capitol grounds, it was the Senate vs. millions of consumers, and consumers lost. In fact, the vote in the Senate was 61 to 38 in favor of defrauding consumers. Senators from the frozen-chicken states locked arms and relied on the old network to reverse a scientifically based USDA rule that was two years in the making. Subsequent objections to this ridiculousness raised elsewhere in Congress were overruled. Kudos to Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Sen. Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., or this legislative feat. Cochran is the chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, the panel that holds the purse strings for the USDA. He got the ball rolling by slipping language into an appropriations bill before his committee that would prevent the department from using its funding to implement or enforce its truth-in- labeling rule. But it was Bumpers who, during debate in the Senate, revealed the true thrust of the big chicken lobby's argument: economics. He said it was difficult to ship chickens from Arkansas without freezing them, claiming that ``economically, that is not doable.'' So in pursuant to additional profits for several large companies, Congress overruled conventional scientific wisdom. These actions typify what is wrong with Washington. The Congress overturned in a matter of weeks a pro-consumer, common-sense ruling by the USDA that took two years and many hours of public input, to make. In the end, Congress chickened out and voted for the best interests of special interests, hoping consumers didn't notice. Well, consumers and fresh poultry producers did notice, and we were disgusted. This isn't a choice between fresh and frozen. It's a choice between consumers' interests and hard-ball politics as usual. What will it be, Washington?

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform the House of the loss of one of our former Members, the Honorable Bernice Frederic Sisk. ``Bernie,'' as he was widely and popularly known was first elected to Congress in 1954. His service began in the 84th Congress and continued for 11 succeeding Congresses. He was not a candidate for re-election in 1978, returning to his Fresno, California home where he lived and served the community in many ways until he went to his final rest on Wednesday of this week--October 25. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to represent today much of the area of California that Congressman Sisk served during his near quarter century in this House. Thus, I am familiar with his legacy and I know from countless constituents the admiration and respect in which he was held. What was written by Capital commentators over time about Congressman Sisk is worth recalling as we honor his memory. In the 1972 Almanac of American Politics, reference is made to how his ingratiating personality and conservative record saw him, an important figure in the House, become a candidate for Majority Leader in late 1970. I feel a kinship with my late predecessor, Mr. Speaker, not only because of geographical identity and his conservatism--even though my party was not his--but also because of his main legislative interest, namely, agriculture, and his sponsorship of major water projects for California's Central Valley. Indeed, the San Luis Dam of the Central Valley Project is named for him. Our community also applauded ``Bernie'' Sisk's legislative leadership in 1977 when he moved to the fore in connection with health care cost control related to Medicare. According to Congressional Quarterly Almanac, he relayed concerns from his district about the effects of an administration plan. He said, according to CQ, ``hospitals must have some way to control the cost of their supplies if they were required to control their revenues.'' The publication reports that Congressman Sisk said hospitals in his area had complained that Federal regulations had become too binding, preventing economy measures that the hospitals wanted to institute. ``There must be more flexibility,'' he is reported as saying. Probably no better statement of the legacy of Congressman Sisk could be expressed than that of our former colleague, Congressman Tony Coelho, who once served as Congressman Sisk's administrative assistant here on the Hill. Tony told me today, ``No single individual did more to advance the economy and growth of the Central Valley than Bernie Sisk.'' Mr. Speaker, Congressman Sisk's passing is a loss to our community and country. To his family, friends, and all he served with great distinction, I express my sincerest sympathy. In further esteem for his memory, I ask that there be included with my remarks the published obituary from the Fresno Bee of October 26, 1995, entitled ``Congressman Leaves Legacy.'' Congressman Leaves Legacy (By Felicia Cousart and Michael Doyle) Former Congressman B.F. Sisk, who emerged from a Dust Bowl childhood to become a longtime political power broker in the nation's capital, died Wednesday in Fresno after a lengthy illness. He was 84. Mr. Sisk, a moderate Democrat from Fresno who served in Congress from 1955 to 1979, worked with six presidents and four House speakers during his long tenure representing the Valley. The one-time tire salesman was one of the most influential lawmakers to come from the region, benefiting not only Valley interests but shaping national policy as well. ``There's nobody who had a greater impact on the San Joaquin Valley than Bernie Sisk,'' said Tony Coelho, former House majority whip and Mr. Sisk's one-time administrative assistant. ``You can go up and down the Valley and find the projects he put there.'' But Mr. Sisk's story is much more than the legacy of a political mover-and-shaker. How he got there is just as fascinating, especially for a man who professed to never have any political ambitions until that day in 1954 when Mr. Sisk, then 43, decided to run for office. He upset Republican Oakley Hunter in what was then California's 12th District and never looked back. `political accident' Mr. Sisk's years in Congress stretched from the laid-back days of Eisenhower to the turmoil of Vietnam and Nixon's Watergate to the early years of the Carter administration. ``I was a political accident,'' Mr. Sisk said in his easy Texas drawl in 1978 when he announced he would retire. He said he never caught what is called ``Potomac fever.'' For a ``political accident,'' Mr. Sisk's work had far- reaching consequences, from his relentless pursuit of the San Luis water project in the Valley to serving on a committee that helped land the first man on the moon. He showed a remarkable aptitude for the political game and became a consummate player. As a member of the House Rules Committee and House Administration Committee, he did for other lawmakers so that they could do for him. ``That gave him a very powerful place,'' said former Sen. Alan Cranston. ``He'd start something in the House, or I'd start something in the Senate and then we'd work together.'' Mr. Sisk's greatest single Valley contribution is the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project. Recently, the San Luis Dam was re-named B.F. Sisk San Luis Dam. The project includes the vast reservoir near Los Banos and 115 miles of canals that help irrigate farmland between Los Banos and Kettleman City. At more than 2 million acre-feet, the San Luis Reservoir is the largest reservoir in the world without a natural stream. ``I'm not sure anybody else could have gotten it through,'' Coelho said. And there are other projects that exist because of Mr. Sisk. Communities like Sanger, Selma, Madera and others tapped into federal funds because of him. The huge Internal Revenue Service center in Fresno, with its 3,500 permanent employees, is in Fresno because of Mr. Sisk. The federal building in downtown Fresno is named after Mr. Sisk. But his reach went far beyond the Valley. When the Soviet Union sent Sputnik into orbit in 1957, Washington went into a tailspin. Within hours, House Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas put together a blue-ribbon committee on science and astronautics and appointed Mr. Sisk. The committee acted to create the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a move that climaxed with the United States landing Apollo 11 on the moon in 1969. In 1961, Rayburn again picked Mr. Sisk for another plum assignment: serving on the power-wielding Rules Committee. The panel is for insiders only--its members set the rules for debate and decide which amendments can be voted on. That committee in the early 1960's helped change history. President Kennedy pushed to [[Page H 11424]] add Mr. Sisk and five other members to dilute the power of the Southern Democratic chairman who was blocking Kennedy's agenda. With the balance shifted, the committee moved ahead on more progressive Democratic proposals that included civil rights, minimum wage and education aid legislation. important issues Not all of Mr. Sisk's efforts were of such weighty magnitude, but they were just as important to him. A baseball fanatic who played the game in high school and college, Mr. Sisk campaigned fevently to keep a professional baseball team in Washington, D.C., when the Senators announced they were leaving in 1971. He and other congressmen even got a committee together. In 1973, The Touchtown Club of Washington, one of the major athletic clubs in the nation, gave Mr. Sisk its ``Mr. Sam Award'' in recognition of his efforts. Mr. Sisk had the ability to separate his personal relationships from his political positions. For example, even as he resisted Southern California's recurring bids for water, he maintained good relations with all sides. ``He used to hate my client but he and I got along great,'' said Bob Will, a longtime lobbyist for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. ``He was one of the fairest guys I ever dealt with. If he had a problem, he summoned me to his office and we tried to work it out,'' Will said. ``Bernie was one of the real doers.'' He did not always get what he wanted. He tried for the position of House majority leader once and failed. Then he tried for the chairmanship of the House Democratic caucus and failed. He had his rivals for power in California, like the late San Francisco Congressman Phil Burton and they would maneuver for advantage against one another. But Mr. Sisk was never short of admirers. ``Congressman Sisk helped establish a tradition of moderate Democrats from the Valley who are committed to furthering the cause of Valley agriculture,'' said Rep. Cal Dooley, D- Hanford. ``His tradition is one that I and other valley legislators have tried to follow.'' His Republican colleague, Rep. George Radanovich of Mariposa, said the community and nation lost a leader. ``Bernie Sisk's service and his special concerns for California's Central Valley set a standard that all of us respect and will long remember,'' he said. ``I wouldn't even call him a politician,'' said Tim Dillon, former lobbyist for the Westlands Water District. ``He would never connive. Bernie was just a fine person from the standpoint of integrity'' his beginnings He was born Bernice Frederick Sisk on Dec. 14, 1910, in a house in rural Montague County in Texas. It was a family of traditional Southern Democrats. His father, Arthur Lee Sisk, was a farmer and his mother was the former Lavina Thomas. He was the oldest of three children. It was a time when young Bernie rode to school on a horse named Beauty, and he remembered at the age of 7 ``going with my parents in the Model T to the Baptist Church in Alanreed to listen to a new invention called a radio.'' In school, history was his favorite subject. He finished high school in Meadow, Texas, where he was class valedictorian. It is also where he met his first wife, Reta. It was not exactly love at first sight. Mr. Sisk had fallen for another and ended up on a double date. Reta was the date of the other fellow. ``Well, Reta and I soon found out we liked each other better and became engaged to be married before we graduated from high school,'' Mr. Sisk recalled. They were wed on April 20, 1931, and were married for 54 years until her death in January 1986. Reta helped keep him a down-to-earth man. She would play annual April Fool's Day jokes on him that rarely failed to get his goat. After high school, Mr. Sisk enrolled in a business college and later attended Abilene Christian College. The Depression and drought in Texas made times tough for the Sisks and everyone else. Their first child, Bobbye, was born in February 1932, and their second child, Marilyn, was born in February 1935. Mr. Sisk found different kinds of jobs, like running a service station and working for his father at a cotton gin, but it got to the point where there ``were just no jobs to be had.'' He managed to get work as a truck driver but it meant long hours away from the family. By 1937, it was time to move and California seemed the best destination. His first job paid 30 cents an hour to thin nectarines. From there, he picked other crops until he landed a job at California Growers Wineries near Cutler. He helped organize a union there and was its first shop steward. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, Mr. Sisk was 31 and volunteered for officer candidate school. He went to work as a flight dispatcher at Sequoia Field in Visalia. After the war, the Sisks moved to Fresno, and Mr. Sisk found a job as a tire salesman, eventually becoming general manager for the General Tire and Rubber Co. in tune with valley It was this job that put Mr. Sisk in tune with what was happening throughout the county. As he visited with farmers on the Valley's west side, he learned of their water problems. Mr. Sisk also noted there were few Democratic leaders in the area and complained about it. Then one day in 1954, Mr. Sisk was invited by lawyer Ken Andreen and labor newspaper editor Charles Clough to meet at the old Sequoia Hotel on Van Ness Avenue. Mr. Sisk thought he was going to make another tire sale. But they wanted to sell him on something--running for Congress. ``Man, I almost fell out of my chair,'' Mr. Sisk recalled, ``I said, `You people are mixed up. I work for General Tire and Rubber Company.' '' They said: ``We understand that's the work you do, but we have been told that you're a Democrat and frankly we're needing a candidate.'' The rest is history. Mr. Sisk worked with some of the most powerful men in America's political history. He worshiped Rayburn, who appointed him to those prized spots on the Rules Committee and the aeronautics committee. He said his favorite president was Kennedy. ``I was a disciple of Camelot,'' he said. ``I came to love that guy. I never felt more of a personal attachment for a president.'' Once retired, Mr. Sisk returned to Fresno and threw himself into a number of projects. After Reta's death, Mr. Sisk married again seven months later to Virgie Mitchell, whose late husband was a brother of Reta. For Mr. Sisk, responding to thousands of constituents' queries was just as important as running in the high-powered circles of Washington. Andreen, who became a justice for the 5th District Court of Appeal, would share a story at a 1978 testimonial dinner for Mr. Sisk about the farmer whose tractor was stuck in the mud because the Friant-Kern Canal was flooding his land. Mr. Sisk, just elected, was in the process of moving into his Washington office. In 2\1/2\ hours, Mr. Sisk called the farmer back. ``He did not say, `I'm going to get on it' or `I told so- and-so to do something,' '' Andreen said. ``No, he told the farmer, `The leak is fixed and your tractor is out of the mud.' Nothing happens that fast in government--unless it comes to the attention of Bernie Sisk.'' tributes ``Bernie was everybody's congressman. He was always enormously helpful to his constituents. He knew when to leave partisan politics outside the room. . . . His heart and mind were always back home.''--Charles ``Chip'' Pashayan, former U.S. representative. ``Congressman Sisk helped establish a tradition of moderate Democrats from the Valley who are committed to furthering the cause of Valley agriculture. His tradition is one that I and other Valley legislators have tried to follow.''--Rep. Cal Dooley, D-Hanford. ``Our community and our country have lost a leader. Bernie Sisk's service and his special concerns for California's Central Valley set a standard that all of us respect and will long remember.''--Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa. ``Bernie Sisk will go down in history as a person that probably has done more for agriculture, particularly in terms of helping to provide irrigation water. He was very instrumental in the construction of the San Luis Dam. And those who served with him, whether they agreed with him or not, will always remember him as a true gentleman.''--John Krebs, former U.S. representative. ``There's nobody who had a greater impact on the San Joaquin Valley than Bernie Sisk. You can go up and down the Valley and find the projects he put there.''--Tony Coelho, former House majority whip and B.F. Sisk's one-time administrative assistant. ``He was one of the fairest guys I ever dealth with. If he had a problem, he summoned me to his office and we tried to work it out. Bernie was one of the real doers.''--Bob Will, a longtime lobbyist for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. ``I wouldn't even call him a politician. He would never connive. Bernie was just a fine person from the standpoint of integrity.''--Tim Dillon, former lobbyist for the Westlands Water District. ``Man, I almost fell out of my chair. I said `You people are mixed up. I work for General Tire and Rubber Company.' ''--Sisk, when asked to run for Congress. ``His number one thing was to take care of the constituents. He never held himself out to be a world leader. What Bernie had, that very few folks have, was the ability to disagree with you without making you angry.''--Gordon Nelson, Sisk's former administrative assistant.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, today is a great day in America. As you all know, it is fall. Back in my hometown of Mariposa in California it is also fall, and what appears about this time of year is something that is known as a face fly. Why they call it a face fly is because if you are outside and you try to do some work, you are trying to get something done, you get this tiny bunch of flies that are in your eyes, in your mouth and buzzing in your ears, and they are a major distraction. Ladies and gentlemen, the Federal Government has become a face fly in the faces of the American people. I believe that we were sent here by the American people last November 8 to get American Government out of our faces. This budget gives that face fly a good swat. It gives freedom to the American people and freedom from a body in this Congress for the last 40 years that has tried to be America's mother, tried to be America's father, tried to be America's pastor, tried to be America's employer. We are giving freedom back to the American people to live their own lives. I would imagine that I have got working poor in my district and their message to you is, get out of my face.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation in defense of the property rights of cabin permittees at the Mineral King Area of Sequoia National Park. Many permittees in Mineral King are apprehensive about evictions from property that their families have used for decades, because the National Park Service no longer believes it has discretion to renew the permits of those permittees who die. This issue has the attributes of a Federal land seizure. What a discouraging sight it would be if these properties are boarded up and the families who have responsibly occupied these historic cabins are evicted. I believe that as a matter of public policy they should be allowed to continue using these cabins. It is in this spirit that I introduce this bill.