George Radanovich

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. I say to the gentleman, ``Thank you, Mr. Ehrilich. A couple of past quotes from two different periods, one in 1990, then one in 1995, one representing the majority held by the other party, this 1995 representing the majority that now currently exists, the Republican majority in the House. It is the same old game. Republicans are out to cut taxes, and strictly for the rich, for their sole benefit, and I think that nothing seems to change. The gentleman may have a quote here.

Mr. RADANOVICH. You bet.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And do not use class warfare baiting. It is not fair to say someone is for the poor any more than anyone else is. We are all here warfare.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I believe so, yes. I think that this is a smack in the face of every individual American in this country that wants to do good and be prosperous, and be personally responsible for their own actions. I think that first quote is right there. And you know, it does boil down to different viewpoints of how we treat individuals in this country and how this side of the aisle looks at the individual and says you have that responsibility, go for it, and the other side of the aisle looks and says you cannot do these things, we need to do it for you. There is a big difference between those two outlooks.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I think that people in my district sent me to Washington to make the tough decisions. If I listen and do what I think is right according to the philosophy that they knew what I believed in when they elected me, then I have their support. If I betray any of that, I do not have their support. That is the way this game works. That is just the way it is. I would like to comment on a couple of things, one being Medicare, and the other one also being the tax cuts. If the Democrats, people on the other side of the aisle, are willing to sit down and have a debate, rather than resorting to what we call class warfare baiting, which it is nothing more than class warfare baiting to keep a strong centralized government in Washington, then let's agree on two things. Let's agree that the Medicare system, number one, is going bankrupt, and let's work together to solve that, be it cuts, additional money, anything else, let's solve that problem. The second problem that needs to be solved is let's together realize if people are taxed less and regulated less, they are going to be more productive, and let's build a tax cut structure that will allow that to happen in this country. If you really want a cooperative effort in this House, you will agree on those two things and proceed from there. We do not need this stuff. The American people do not buy it, we do not buy it, it is not true. There is no class warfare baiting here. The Republicans are not here for the rich. I do not know how many Republicans are rich anyway. I am not a rich Republican. But it just does not work. This was an article, editorial, in the Washington Times today, ``Not Rising to Class Warfare Battle.'' And that is exactly what Republicans are doing. They are not rising to the class warfare battle.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I will say, us being new Members, we could remain here a long time, if it were not for two things, and not do the business of our district. In the past I think it used to be elected representatives would come to Washington. They would say one thing in their district, they would do the other thing here in Washington. For a long time the tolerant American people gave their elected representatives the benefit of the doubt that they were doing the right thing in Washington. Well, two things changed that. One is C-SPAN and the other is talk radio. I do not think anybody can afford to come to this body anymore and say one thing in their district and not do the same thing here, because there will be a lot to pay on election day. So that motivation and that way of operating is now unmasked. If this gentleman and this gentleman want to stay in this House for very long at all and serve the needs of their district, they better do what they say in their district here on the floor of the House. I think C-SPAN and talk radio are the big changes that made that possible.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I would say the bottom line motive behind that approach from the other side of the aisle debate in Washington is not necessarily balancing the budget, although that is very important; it is who is going to have control. Is it going to remain here in Washington, DC, or is it going to get down to the most local level possible, via the States down to local governments and closest to the American people in their own homes? That is really the threat. That is why you see baseless arguments like this. You see people on the other side of the aisle class warfare baiting, only for one reason, and that is to keep control in this House, in the other body, in this town, in Washington, DC. It is called centralized government. It is where you have a lot of control over a lot of people. Some people like that. Those of us newly elected to Washington do not want that. We want the American people to have the control, and that is what we are trying to do here in Washington.

Mr. RADANOVICH. It just is not true, and I think, if you pose the argument that if a person is taxed less and regulated less, then they will be more productive, is an argument that both sides of this aisle will buy. But if you go to the next stage of the argument and say OK, how do they begin to regulate and tax less to the benefit of the American people, this side of the aisle says all right, let's go. Let's work this plan out. That side of the aisle says no. But there is no logic behind why they are saying no, because that side of the aisle will also agree to the fact that if we are taxed less and regulated less, we will be more productive. But their logic starts there. God knows why.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Not so.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All you have to do is look at the books, and you will know that is what is going to happen with Medicare, so regardless of-- balancing the budget is not an issue with Medicare. It is fixing the system and doing what is necessary in order to make that system not only work for the people that are currently drawing benefits, but it also worked for people, you and I, and those that are 18 and 20 years old, when they come into the time of their life when they need that service as well. So there are two basic issues there that are not commingled, and the fact if we wanted to, if the Republicans wanted to benefit the rich, what they do is cut taxes and cut regulations. Then that would not only benefit the rich, but the middle class and the poor. Because the Democratic assumption that cutting taxes, for example, capital gains, would be a benefit to the rich is an insult to the poor because, not only would it make more capital available for venture capital and expansion to the rich, but also the middle class and the poor, and it is almost an insult to the poor to say they could not take advantage of that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. The big lesson is that, if you want to raise revenue, you have to got to cut taxes. You cannot raise revenue by raising taxes, and I think that is the big lesson we have learned over the last 4 years, and I think that is what this new majority is trying to implement in their tax cuts. Now there is two arguments when the Democrats accuse the Republicans of gutting Medicare to benefit the wealthiest Americans. There is two arguments here. One is that the basic argument is that, if you cut taxes, if you regulate people less, and you tax them less, they are going to be more productive, and I think that is one basic question. The other basic question on Medicare is the fact that on its own Medicare will go bankrupt in 5 to 7 years.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And history provided that example as a result of the yacht tax in the last 2 years; is that not right?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right, and the same quote being is this sacrifice balanced and fair. And indeed it is. Fifty percent of the revenue burden falls on the wealthiest income earners in this country, and that is the way it should be.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, on March 3, this House approved the Private Property Rights Act. The purpose of the legislation is to reaffirm clearly that the Federal Government cannot take or diminish the value of private property without paying just compensation. Since March 3, opponents of private property rights have sought to discredit the legislation by claiming that it is intended to protect water subsidies. That is totally false. The Private Property Rights Act would allow a farmer to seek compensation if he is denied the use of part of his farm because of Federal wetlands or endangered species laws. The act would provide exactly the same protection to a farmer who loses the use of part of his property because his water supply is reduced or eliminated by Federal environmental regulation. The compensation would be based on the economic loss resulting from the decreased productive capacity of his or her farm. It would not be based on the price of the water. Unfortunately, the false perceptions regarding the water rights provisions of the Private Property Rights Act have been given undeserved credence by recent articles in the Wall Street Journal. I have written to the editor of this newspaper to point out the errors. Mr. Speaker, I ask that a copy of my letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 14, 1995. Mr. Robert L. Bartley, Editor, The Wall Street Journal, New York, NY. Dear Editor: As a conservative Republican Member of Congress, I take strong exception to Mr. David Frum's March 13 column ``The GOP's `Takings' Sell Out.'' Mr. Frum takes the Republican majority in the House to task for allegedly opting to ``break with its free-market convictions'' by including water rights provisions in the Private Property Rights Act, which passed the House on March 3. Mr. Frum completely misstates both the intent and effect of the Private Property Rights Act when he asserts that it ``requires the federal government to compensate Western Farmers and miners should it ever be tempted to ask them to pay the market price for water they take from federal irrigation projects.'' The provision has nothing to do with the price of water. Mr. Frum is absolutely correct that ``the removal of a subsidy is not an abridgment of a property right.'' The Private Property Rights Act does not protect water subsidies. What it does do is allow landowners to be compensated for economic loss when their ``right to use or receive water'' is abridged by the federal government. The water provisions of the legislation are specifically intended to ensure that Western farmers can apply for compensation when the value of their property is significantly diminished by a federal action that denies them the water that they are entitled to receive (with or without a subsidy) under state law or a binding contract with the federal government. Farmland in the arid West isn't worth much without water. When a farmer's water supply is reduced or eliminated, the productive capacity--the value--of his or her property is reduced or eliminated. Throughout the West, the Endangered Species Act and more recent water project ``reform'' laws are being used by federal bureaucrats to deny water to agriculture. This is particularly true in my state of California. The Republican majority in Congress is not abandoning its free-market convictions in the water policy arena. In fact, many of us believe that the federal government should get out of the water delivery business altogether by selling or transferring its water projects to local public agencies. We would welcome Mr. Frum's thoughts on that endeavor, provided he gets his facts straight first. Respectfully, George P. Radanovich, Member of Congress (R-CA-19th).

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. You know, gentleman from Maryland, it seems to me that there are in a book somewhere, and I do not think it said Uncle Sam is my shepherd, it said somebody else, and I think that in America we have just begun to depend too much on Uncle Sam for being a little bit more than what he is and I think that some of the Representatives in the House of Representatives over the years, probably over the last 30 to 40 years, have gotten to the point where they justified their existence by expanding the role of what Federal Government does, and unfortunately, what it has led to is a lot of tragedy, I think, and into a current situation that, again, I am embarrassed to have to defend. I really am. We have gotten to the point in this country where it is sad, frankly, the way we treat one another in this country and based upon this overriding dependence on Federal Government, and, again, my word to the opposite party, to the Democratic leadership, is, you should be very embarrassed to defend the way things are in Washington right now. And I just got out of a budget hearing today, a markup on bills where we are cutting budgets right now, and I am here to say that nobody is being treated any better than anybody else. The rich are going to get it, the middle class is going to get it, and the poor is going to get it. That is kind of the way it is right now. And the use of the Republicans wanting to do this to reward the rich is a pathetic argument, it really is.

Mr. RADANOVICH. It does harken back to personal responsibility and what a privilege it is to live in a country such as America that was based on the principles of self government, and I think that somewhere in some good book it says, do not be so anxious to be suing your neighbor, and I think that the law system in this land, the court system in this land, really is a privilege, and I think that when you abuse a privilege, you end up getting restrictions on the privilege or the privilege gets taken away. And I admire the fact that the Democrats for so many years defended the right to sue and the open legal system that we have had in the past, but I think what we are seeing right now is such an abuse of the system, and when you, through lack of personal responsibility and personal accountability for your own actions, you begin to abuse the system, you have to clamp down restrictions on that system and, to me, it is a perfect example, again, of where we have lost the idea of personal responsibility and personal accountability in this country. Stop suing each other. We have sued each other too much. Now because of that and because we have placed such a burden on the system, we have got to clamp down on it. I think that is basically it.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Can I make a point?

Mr. RADANOVICH. I would like to make a point too at this particular stage and that is, a lot of what you hear on the other side of the aisle from their leadership is, when our party was in the minority, we resorted to a lot of hit tactics of their leadership. We did a lot of things that they didn't like, and now they are going to turn around and do it to us, as thinking that in some means by doing that they are going to get back the majority of the House. My point is, I think that whatever the party did before I got here is fine, but I tell you, the only reason why I am here today and the only reason we are in the majority is not because we took hits to the then majority, but because we went before the American people with a plan and we said, listen, this is what we are going to do. We promise that we will do these things 1 through 10. You send us to Washington, we will do it. Now, if that is the case and I believe it to be, gosh darn it, come up with your plan. Stop hitting, stop defending a miserable losing system that we have here in Washington right now.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And more money. I have got an example, too, if I may. This is on the eating disorders of pigeons. There is a million dollars spent on discussing the eating disorders of pigeons. I will tell you, if I had an endangered species person, I was a pigeon, and had an endangered species person following me around day to day, watching everything I did, I would have an eating disorder, too. These are things, again, another example of how when you get a centralized government that is far removed from reality in the day-to-day business, you begin to get things that are unapplicable and have no sense to our daily lives. Now, I am not against research, you know, of one kind or another, but I think what you get after a while is stuff that is not applicable to reality, and I think that that is basically the problem that we are facing right now. Those that are criticizing what the Republicans are doing in the House right now in the Contract With America, with the goals of achieving privatization and local control, in my mind, have a real hard time. I would be embarrassed, frankly, if I had to defend the system that we have here in Washington right now, and yet it seems to me that with the Democratic leadership on the other side of the aisle, or however you are supposed to say it, I would be embarrassed to defend what Washington does right now, rather than saying, ``Let's both agree that what is going on is wrong right now. Let's both come up with plans, and let's introduce them on the floor and go back with new ideas.'' Who on Earth would want to have to defend what Washington is doing right now? It is a ludicrous system back here that is bankrupting America, enslaving the lives of poor, unfortunate people who do not know better, under a system that is just doling out money. And, you know, frankly, I think that the Federal Government is such a poor substitute for personal responsibility that I would be embarrassed to be sitting on this floor defending all of the things that the Federal Government does right now. But that is all we hear. That is all we hear, and it has been interesting for us to just arrived here 70 days ago, 10 weeks ago, to hear the defense of the welfare state we hear time and time again on the floor of this House. And the fact is, and it is an observation that many of us have discussed privately, there are no ideas. There are no new ideas. There are no new initiatives across the aisle. It is the same old stuff and the American people rejected it on November 8 and they are rejecting it in March 1995 and they are going to reject it in July 1995 and they are going to reject it in 1996.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Beyond that, it is a process of justification. Then those in the bureaucracy have to justify their existence so they will come up with new programs that are less and less applicable to the real world.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Exactly. You know, I think there are probably 435 very caring people here, but I would not exclude it to us. I mean, there are thousands of elected officials out there that take their commitment to their public office just as seriously as you and I, and maybe more seriously than some people in this body. I do not see any reason why they cannot be trusted with more responsibility and, frankly, that is what this is all about.

Mr. RADANOVICH. You will be there someday. But you have never been. But nobody knows my problems better than I do, and I believe nobody can solve my problems better than those elected officials in my district who are on the local and State level, and I think that in reference to the reference by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] to class warfare, it seems to be the defense of those who defend a strong central Federal Government that whenever people like us who are elected and come in and try to solve that problem, we get accused of being in favor of class warfare, being against the poor, being against the middle class, being for the rich, and I am a Republican, and, ``I ain't rich.'' But those seem to be the arguments that are posed here, and I cannot help but go back to two things. First is, there is a deep mistrust of local elected officials on behalf of the Democratic they see as solving problems from a strong Federal Government, where if we raise your taxes a little bit more we just get a little bit more money in the Federal till, we will be able to solve welfare, we will be able to solve, we will be able to solve the dilemma of so many women becoming pregnant, unmarried mothers, we will be able to solve it, we will just spend a little bit more money on it. Implicit in that is a recurring theme that only the Federal Government can have empathy for poor people.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And it is a disservice to the American people flat out. I mean, what they are doing is clouding what the issues really are on the floor of this House. I have got an issue from one of the Senators in my State regarding a balanced budget amendment, which, in my view, is necessary in order to get spending under control and to achieve privatization and localization, where at one point during that Senator's election, voted whatsoever. In the political race of that person's life, voted for the balanced budget amendment and won the election and then afterward it comes up to the Senate that person voted against the same balanced budget amendment measure. And what I would caution I think on both sides of the party is that people are going to come back to Washington, they better come here with some convictions and they better keep them once they get here because the voters are going to see right through them.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Reinforced by the President as well. Through all that garbage must get some common sense to what we are really trying to accomplish here, and that is, reducing Federal Government by localizing it and privatizing it, and that extends to all areas of Federal Government.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, I say to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich], for yielding. I guess the point I think that needs to be made in what is happening on the floor of this House, the changes that the new majority, the Republican Party, is wanting to make is that which is a return to local control and privatization of what we are doing right here in Washington right now, and I think that some of the basic messages of those who so desire a strong central government that reaches in and controls the lives of so many people is the basic message is you cannot trust anybody else but those on the floor of this House including the 2 of us, but not excluding 433 other Members of this House. And I guess my comment is that, and to reinforce what the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] is saying, is that government is best done at the local level, and problem-solving is best done at the local level. I can take care of things much better in my district much better than the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] could, because he probably has never been to Fresno, probably has never been to my hometown.