George Radanovich

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Maybe next time we will have a 1-800 number and the people can do call-ins on. I do not know.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And frankly I think that is why we are here, but I think the point, too, as to why we are here tonight is to get a point across, that point, and that is the fact that we are here for localizing government to the local level and also privatizing certain functions that Washington does, and that can't be said too many times. It just needs to be said over and over again.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Balanced budget.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And I would say to the Democratic party, rather than hurling stones and misrepresenting what is going on back here, come up with a plan, for God's sake. Bring it up here and let's debate the merits of it. But to use the same old tactic, admitting that maybe they worked for the Republicans in achieving the majority, which I think they are wrong, it was the Contract With America that got us the majority, do what we do, but do the things we did right. Do a plan and sell it to the American people. If they are not going to buy it, then I would suggest you change your plan.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall No. 195, the vote on the Goss amendment to the Canady substitute. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes'' on it. Personal explanation

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, bureaucracies have little respect for private property. In my district, for example, a constituent has been fighting an uphill battle with USDA's Forest Service over an easement right. Here is a letter from Jeffrey Green, county counsel of Mariposa County--my home community and on whose board of supervisors I formerly served. He explains the problem in a straightforward way that I believe my colleagues will find illuminating, and I ask that it be included with my remarks in the Record. I also want to point out that the problem discussed by Mr. Green has a further dimension that illustrates the indifference Federal bureaucrats can display. More than a year ago--January 10, 1994--the district ranger of Stanislaus National Forest wrote Mr. Green that the requested road use permit for my constituents would be ready within the next 30 days. When that didn't happen, Mr. Green made further inquiry. On May 17, 1994, the district ranger wrote that he could ensure that the permit would be received shortly. Knowing I planned to use this awful apathy by the Forest Service in remarks on the House floor, my promised permit yet had issued. Sad to say, Mr. Chairman, the answer was ``no.'' These are intolerable circumstances that, I am learning go on every day across our country. Citizens are at the mercy of a corps of overpaid, underworked dolts who make a mockery of the term, ``public service.'' The County Counsel, Mariposa County, CA, March 2, 1995. Re National Forest Service Use Permit for Billy J. Lovelace. Office of Congressman Radanovich, Cannon Building, Washington, DC: I have previously forwarded to your office my correspondence relative to the above matter and the failure of the Forest Service, after numerous promises, to issue a Use Permit to Mr. Lovelace to access his property wherein he resides. You have requested that I provide you additional information as to why in my opinion this type of activity illustrates the federal government's failure to respect property rights of its citizens. Mr. Lovelace purchased his property with the access road to his dwelling already constructed. That access road did in fact cross a small portion of the Forest Service property and an easement existed for the use of that Forest Service strip of land. When the easement expired, the Forest Service basically took the position that Mr. Lovelace was going to have to find other access to his property, although as a practical matter no other access existed. Mr. Lovelace felt totally ineffectual in dealing with the National Forest Service personnel, as they made him feel that access to his property would be granted upon their whim only and not as any property right he may have acquired over a period of time. We all know that you cannot acquire a prescriptive easement against a governmental entity, however, there is a concept of fair play and due process when the federal government has allowed access over a period of years and then arbitrarily determined that it may not continue that access to the property owner. That is what happened in the Lovelace case and the possible denial of the Use Permit has caused great emotional distress to Mr. Lovelace. He feels totally helpless in dealing with the federal government and therefore contacted his County Supervisor, Doug Balmain, to intervene on his behalf. Supervisor Balmain and myself did in fact intervene on Mr. Lovelace's behalf and had a number of conversations with the Forest Service personnel. Essentially the first meetings indicated that the Forest Service was adopting a blanket policy without any regard to the private property rights of the individuals in that it was inappropriate to access private property over a Forest Service land if there was any other conceivable way to access the property. Of course, to the Forest Service, any conceivable way to access the property did not take into consideration the extreme expenses involved in most cases, and the topography of the land which may make it impossible to access. However, after a number of conversations and written correspondence, the Forest Service did in fact agree that Mr. Lovelace was entitled to a Use Permit to access his property. As you know, that permit has still not been issued even though it was promised well over a year ago. Certainly when Mr. Lovelace purchased his property, he felt he had a property right to access his dwelling over the road that had been constructed prior to his purchase. It was only after his purchase that he discovered that the Forest Service may restrict access to his property. In my opinion, as well as Supervisor Balmain's opinion, the federal government has a moral right and obligation to deal honestly and fairly with citizens who are affected by its rules and regulations. Access to an individual's dwelling is certainly viewed by that individual as a property right and the threat of removing that access generates a great deal of distress for the property owner. Based upon other experiences with the Forest Service, this is not an unusual way in which the Forest Service personnel deals with citizens' property rights and values. In one of the letters which my office received from the District Ranger regarding this matter, the following language was contained in the letter which, in effect, chastised Supervisor Balmain and myself for becoming involved in this issue: ``Since the issues revolve around the administration and management of National Forest lands, all future correspondence will be carried out through the concerned individuals.'' I read that sentence to essentially tell Supervisor Balmain and myself to butt out of Supervisor Balmain's constituent's business with the federal government. Should you desire any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Jeffrey G. Green, County Counsel.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. If I may, if the gentleman will yield, I would like to tell the audience a bit of a story that happened in my district with regard to small business. There was a killer in my district. My name is George Radanovich from the San Joaquin Valley in California. A little to the south of me, not necessarily in my district but very close, there was a killer on the loose and the Federal Government swooped down on this person one day and came down on this killer as he was disking his farm there in Kern County, CA and arrested the man. He was, as I said, out on a tractor disking his field as he was preparing it for the crop he was hoping to harvest a few months later. This man was the killer. They arrested him and they took the weapon at the scene of the crime. And the weapon itself was a tractor and in disking what he had done was he had killed five rats, and this was under the Endangered Species regulation. Actually, he is in court right now facing I believe a 6-year sentence and a $100,000 fine, and what he did was he killed five rats while he was trying to go about the business of farming on the ground that he owned. This is the kind of legislation, Madam Speaker, that we are running into in our districts, and it is not so much, granted you know the way that they are dealing with this issue is a real problem, but the whole point of the problems in endangered species legislation or any regulation is where it is coming from. And I think we heard plenty today and over the past few weeks when we are trying to get rid of some of the regulations that come out of this body, what we are trying to do is send it to the local level so that at the local level those regulations will begin to make a little bit of sense. When the far-reaching arm of Washington reaches down from 3,000 miles away and abducts a farmer for disking his own field or killing rats, it is a pretty good indication of the fact that regulation from Washington does not work very well. Food programs from Washington do not work very well, crime programs from Washington do not work very well in Fresno. What we need to do and I hope what we are doing by block granting is getting those funds into the district and placing them into the proper hands for people to take care of the problem locally, because I do not know, nobody in this body knows how to take care of crime better in Fresno than my mayor, Jim Patterson, and my police chief, Ed Winchester and my sheriff, Steve Magarian. Those guys know it the best, and that is the problem I have with regulation coming out of this floor out of Washington, DC. My colleague from Maryland has some similar examples as well, and I am sure he would like to be able to relate them. I have a whole list of these too.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I think I got my point across. I just needed to say that. I think American needs to hear the fact we are here trying to do some good, and I think we are. But until we start relying on other people in this country, you know, it is going to get worse.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I get tired of hearing I hate apple pie, mom, and kids.

Mr. RADANOVICH. If the gentleman will yield, I guess I want to respond by saying that we on this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Maryland and I, are both freshmen, we are new here, but everybody on this side of the aisle has been accused of hating mom and kids and apple pie and dogs and everything else. The point that we are trying to get across to the American people is that we have more resources to solve problems if they depend less on 435 elected officials and begin to depend more on the thousands of elected officials all across the land. That is when we will start getting regulation that makes sense, and people will begin respecting this body once we begin to respect other elected officials on the local level to do the right thing. Because I have no question, I am here to do the right thing, and I do not question any other Member of this House to say that they are not doing the right thing, because I believe they are. But the fact of the matter is we have got to begin to trust in the elected system and that the people that sent us here also sent other people to other posts and we can allow them to have the responsibility to do their jobs, and keeping tax dollars in districts.

Mr. RADANOVICH. In the recent crime bill, which is interesting because it illustrates this point, during the debate on the crime bill which were block granting funds down to the State level, and hopefully to the local level and back into the jurisdictions where they can solve their problems, a comment was made by someone on the other side of the aisle saying the very same thing, that we cannot trust. What we cannot do is trust the people on the local level to properly implement those funds. And I am sitting here thinking I have got prime problems in Fresno, CA. That is the heart of my district. It is a wonderful place, but it has got a problem with crime, and I am sitting here side of the aisle who has never been to Fresno, I guarantee it, to know how to solve problems in my community. By the way, midnight basketball would not work there--and not trust the people, the good people that are really on the frontlines trying to solve the problems, and to trust them to do it, and I mean I do not even know enough about how to solve crime in Fresno. What I do is I rely on the people that the citizens of those communities elected to solve those problems and give them every resource that I can unencumbered, and it is this basic mistrust that is why I wanted to give that argument. It is that basic mistrust of local and State officials is what the problem the other side of the aisle has.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I agree with you, and I have got another tale to tell: Madam Speaker, water is an important commodity in our district. We have a network of dams that supply agricultural water and also water to our cities. Under a different majority in 1992 we had what is called the CVPIA, which is the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. During that time there was a study to be initiated on one of the major streams in my district that was dammed, and the study would require $5 million allocated for that study as well to study the establishment, reestablishment, of a fishery, and what the study was intended to show in 1996 was a way that we could take water from agriculture and reestablish a fishery that had disappeared with the establishment of the dam in the 1960's. The study was supposed to say that any project that came up with that, those results, had to be reasonable, prudent and feasible, and so since 1992 they began their study, and just the mere consideration of this study, which everybody knew would bankrupt agriculture in the valley for the amount of water that would have to be taken from agriculture to replenish this stream, my farmers were facing decrease in land values. They were not getting loans at the bank simply because of the mere thought of doing something like this. Everybody knew that it was going to take so much water that it would literally destroy agriculture in my valley. Thank God the other day we were able to stop this study, but it is just another example of somebody's idea of, yes, it would be very nice to have fish back in the San Joaquin River. You put a price tag to that with these ideas that come out of Washington. You can quickly find that they are neither reasonable, prudent and feasible, and you do not have to spend $5 million finding that out. And the list goes on, and again I think that it drives home the point that we in Washington and these Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are going to have to realize that America can trust not only us, but every other elected official all the way down to dog catcher in Main Street USA to successfully deal with problems and allow them to do that. I think that is what the evolution is all about, and I think that is what block granting is all about. It is by Members of Congress admitting that they do not know, they do not know every detail of the problems in every little town and downtown America.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I have another story. I think in my district an article was written recently in our local paper that talked about the hand ``Biting the Hand that Feeds Us'' was the name of this article in Fresno, and it talked about how we are biting the hand of big Government that is feeding my valley to the tune of about $4.6 billion a year, and the article went on to say that it covers the various benefits, quote unquote benefits, that come from Washington into the district to the tune of about $4.6 billion. That includes everything, pensions, AFDC, farm subsidies, the whole bit. You name it. Four point six billion dollars in there. And the tone of the article, which is quite interesting, was the fact that we are--you know, can the valley survive a hit of $4.6 billion, and went on to say how, no, we cannot, we cannot survive without the help of the Federal Government. In a small sentence at the end of the article it did say, however, that $5.3 billion left the valley to come to Washington, and so the point that was never made was that $5.3 billion was paid in taxes from my district. My district got $4.6 billion less. Now there is a discrepancy there of about $700 million, and I would like to make the case that if that, those dollars, never left Fresno, solving the same problems, they would have $700 million more to deal with on the local level, and, my colleagues, that is what I think we are trying to get at here in Washington when we are talking about regulatory control. No. 1, the regulations do not make sense from Washington. No. 2, you give the money back to the States and let them deal with their own problems. They got more money to begin with, and they are going to be much more reasonable in their regulation. It boils down to me, too, of trusting other people.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I have another tale of what happens in my district. I also represent grazing land in the Sierra National Forest. Part of my district allows, over the past 20 years, cattleman to do summer grazing in the Sierras by permit. There are people who have been up there and using the same ground over a 20-year period. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, what is happening in my district right now, and this is through the National Environmental Policy Act which requires a biological study now for everybody who goes up in there. Remember, these people have been up there for the past 20 years. And they are gearing up for their season which when the snow melts will start this spring. They are being told through this National Environmental Policy Act that they have to do a biological study. This requires thousands of dollars, it requires months to do. If they were to do it now, it would be ready in the winter of the following year. They could be locked out of 1 year in the Sierra Nevadas. My cattleman in my area are facing the fact of having to sell down the herds they have built up over many many years and taking capital gains losses over that, simply because a rule that stated that these people have to go through biological studies that will take months instead of being flexible to allow that to happen over a period of maybe 1 or 2 years, knowing the fact that they have been up there for the last hundreds of years and the Sierras are still there, that they cannot demonstrate any flexibility. That represents a loss of business and a loss of jobs, and again it is just another example of laws and regulations coming out of Washington that are better served coming out at the local level because they make more sense.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, due to unavoidable travel delays I missed two votes taken Tuesday, February 20, 1995. Had I been present I would have made the following votes: First, yea on the previous question on Rule H.R. 831. Second, yea on the rule on H.R. 831.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am not interested in slowing the passage of H.R. 450, sir.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I had rather it be taken care of in the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I wish to raise the issue, but I have no intention of stopping the speedy passage of H.R. 450.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I am told that I may inform my colleagues in this House that I have an amendment to offer, but in the interest of ensuring the speedy passage of H.R. 450, I will not offer the amendment, but instead start a dialogue concerning an issue which must be dealt with in the near term. That issue is the regulation concerning ``fresh'' and ``frozen'' chickens. My points are these: Why cannot this wait until the moratorium is over? Shoppers across the country are paying anywhere from 40 cents to 1 dollar more per pound for chicken they think is fresh, when it isn't. This means that American homes are being defrauded of millions of dollars each year and to wait means we are sitting back and knowingly allowing this fraud to continue for an entire year. In California in particular, it would mean another year in which out- of-state processors can intentionally undersell regional producers by misrepresenting their product. The industry has 25,000 employees and has steadily lost market share to frozen chicken sold as fresh. How long has this fight been going on? USDA has been trying to change this rule since 1988. The Food Safety and Inspection Service changed it's policy to stop the use of the term ``fresh'' on frozen chicken, but powerful national poultry producers intervened and stopped the new policy from going into effect. The California legislature tried to act on its own to prohibit mislabeling in September, 1993. When they were stopped from doing so by a Federal court, they started working to persuade USDA to adopt a better standard for the whole country. Mr. Chairman, based on these concerns, I urge the Committee on Agriculture to consider in some appropriate context the passage of a special allowance for this regulation. I find it difficult being a small businessman with this kind of concern, and I support fully H.R. 450, but I wish that in this particular area, a consideration would be given. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a short fax sheet explaining the history of this problem, as follows: The Fresh Chicken Controversy Historically, national poultry producers have been putting fresh labels on frozen chicken. They freeze their chicken rock solid, label it fresh, truck it across the U.S., thaw it out locally and sell it to consumers as if it had never been frozen. These producers know that consumers will pay a premium for fresh food, but consumers don't know they're being duped. On July 11, 1988, after months of scientific analysis, the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued Policy Memo 022B, raising the fresh poultry labeling standard from 0 to 26 degrees Fahrenheit. This meant that national producers could no longer put fresh labels on chicken chilled below 26 degrees--the actual freezing point for poultry. National producers were not happy with this policy change. On January 11, 1989, despite FSIS's scientific conclusions six-months earlier, USDA abruptly rescinded Policy Memo 022C and restored the old standard allowing producers to once again freeze chicken as low as 1 degree Fahrenheit and still label it as fresh. In 1993, the California legislature unanimously passed a law mirroring the short-lived Federal standard of 26 degrees. The National Broiler Council and the Arkansas Poultry Federation sued, arguing that a rule than the U.S. government. USDA filed a brief in the lawsuit supporting the poultry industry position. A Federal court blocked enforcement of California's law on jurisdictional grounds on April 8, 1994. The issue was appealed. Many other states, including New York, Arizona, Oregon, Maine, Alaska, Illinois, Washington and Puerto Rico, have passed poultry labeling laws regarding the definition of ``fresh'', as well as organic and kosher production and processing. On February 10, 1994, USDA Secretary Mike Espy issued a press release, pledging that USDA would direct the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to reexamine whether current policy on fresh labeling is reasonable. On June 16, 1994, the Government Operations Subcommittees on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations and Information, Justice, Transportation and Agriculture conducted a joint hearing on USDA rules concerning ``fresh'' labels on poultry products. Richard Rominger, USDA Deputy Secretary, testified that FSIS staff would review current policy on two tracks: evaluate scientific literature concerning temperature effects on poultry, and, conduct regional hearings to assess consumer expectations. These results would form the basis of any policy revision regarding labeling of ``fresh'' poultry. Support for a new rule continued to grow. Well-known and respected consumer groups urged Secretary Espy to act, including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumers League and Public Voice for Food & Health Policy. On July 27, ``The Truth in Poultry Labeling Act of 1994'' was introduced by Senators Boxer and Feinstein and Representative Condit in the 103rd Congress. The Senate approved Senator Boxer's Amendment to S. 2095 expressing the sense of the Senate that delays in proposing a new rule must be ended and a decision must be made ``as expeditiously as possible.'' FSIS Administrator Michael R. Taylor promised Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Condit that truth-in- labeling would be addressed on a ``fast track''. On August 26, 1994, USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service announced public hearings on the use of the term ``fresh'' on the labeling of raw poultry products to be held on: September 12, 1994 in Modesto, California; September 16, 1994 in Atlanta, Georgia; and September 20, 1994 in Washington, D.C., to assist FSIS in developing a new policy. Consumer advocates, chefs, consumers and home economists came forward and testified at these public hearings across the country that it was time for USDA to listen to consumers and end mislabeling of poultry. In a letter to Senator Boxer and Congressman Condit. USDA promised a rule before Thanksgiving. On December 14, 1994, a victory was won by California consumers when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the provision making it illegal for poultry frozen below 26 degrees Fahrenheit to be advertised or sold as fresh. Consumer advocates Public Voice for Food and Health Policy and the National Consumers League implored USDA to change federal labeling laws so that all Americans are afforded the same protection against the misrepresentation of frozen chicken being sold as fresh. On December 21, 1994, Senator Boxer again urged USDA Deputy Secretary Rominger to expedite rule-making, particularly in light of the recent California Court decision. Deputy Secretary Rominger again assured her that a proposed rule would be announced within four weeks. Consumers, chefs, consumer advocates, home economists and members of Congress continue to anxiously await USDA's resolution of this priority issue. While USDA drags its feet, Congressman Condit introduces H.R. 203, ``The Truth in Poultry Labeling Act'' in the 104th Congress. On January 17, 1995, FSIS finally acts and releases a proposed regulation on labeling ``fresh'' poultry prohibiting the use of the term ``fresh'' being used on raw poultry products whose internal temperature has gone below 26 degrees and requiring thawed products which have gone below 26 degrees to be labeled ``previously frozen.'' Truth-in-advertising and honest labeling have not yet been achieved. Consumers, consumer advocates, poultry producers, and other supporters who believe in honest labeling can tell USDA to not bow to the pressure of those producers interested in continuing to mislead the public. FSIS must be vigilant in preserving the rights of consumers. Comments to the Federal Register will be accepted until March 20, 1995. A federal rule on poultry freshness will not stop national producers from selling chickens nationwide, nor will it stop them from selling at lower prices than in-state growers; it will simply enable consumers who wish to pay a premium for freshly killed poultry to make an informed selection.

Mr. RADANOVICH. It does, as it clarifies the amendment.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, the moratorium on Federal regulations does not apply to the California Bay-Delta agreement of December 15, 1994, and the actions necessary to implement that agreement. The December 15 agreement is an accord between the Federal agencies of the Department of the Interior, Commerce, and EPA and the State of California. It is not a Federal regulatory action. The agreement calls for the withdrawal of the EPA final rules for water quality standards in the delta, once the California Water Resources Control Board adopts its own final rules under State law. This is expected to happen in March 1995. Thus, there is no impediment to the implementation to the bay-delta agreement as a result of the EPA regulations becoming subject to the moratorium. The agreement also calls for the 1995 Biological Opinions on winter run salmon and Delta smelt to be consistent with the bay-delta agreement. This means that the existing 1994 biological opinions must be revised to conform to the bay-delta agreement. It should be clear that the revision on these biological opinions is not a regulatory action subject to the moratorium. If, for some reason, the 1994 biological opinions could not be revised to conform to the bay-delta agreement, there could be a significant water cost to Federal and State contractors south of the delta. This would be a significant obstacle to the continued implementation of the bay-delta agreement. We know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is aware of the environmental problems in California in the San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. We know that you are also aware of the recent historic agreement between the State of California and a number of Federal agencies that has temporarily resolved many of the environmental problems in the delta.

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

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, on December 11, 1991, in response to Serbian aggressions against the neighboring Republic of Croatia resulting in Serbian occupation of one quarter of Croatia, the international community put forward the Vance plan, a framework to work toward peace in the region. Since that time, more than 3 years ago, Croatia has continuously cooperated with the United Nations and, along with Bosnia, has accepted numerous peace initiatives. The Serbian side, on the other hand, has rejected repeated offers of peace and remains recalcitrant in progress toward further peaceful negotiations. The Vance plan, confirmed by U.N. Resolution 724 and 740, had six major goals: First, the cessation of hostilities and demilitarization of regions where military conflict had taken place; second, the withdrawal of the Yugoslav Army from Croatia; third, the maintenance of public order by supervision of local police made up based on prewar ethnic percentages; fourth, the protection of minorities in these areas; fifth, the placement of military observers along Croatia's border with Bosnia and Herzegovina; and sixth, the facilitation of the return of displaced persons and refugees. Pursuant to the Vance plan, the United Nation created protection areas [UNPA's] in Serb-occupied areas of Croatia, and introduced a protection force [UNPROFOR] in those UNPA's in order to carry out the objectives of the Vance plan and reestablish peace in the region. During the more than 3 years since the institution of the Vance plan, the Republic of mandate seven separate times. While some sort of public order has been maintained and the Yugoslav Army has partially departed, the UNPA's have not been demilitarized. Heavily armed Serbian paramilitary units remain, the local non-Serbian population continues to be expelled and in some cases killed, and it has not been possible for a single displaced person to return to these areas. According to the 1991 census, there were 261,942 non-Serbs in the UNPA's. Since the arrival of UNPROFOR at least 39,000 non-Serbs have been forced to flee, 347 have been killed, 26 women raped, and 1,618 tortured at the hands of the Serbian occupiers. This is an intolerable situation. With the intransigence of the Serbs to engage in serious discussions of peace, Crotia's mandate renewals have amounted to no less than tacit U.N. support for the indefinite continued Serb occupation of Croatian lands seized by aggression. In real terms, the positive economic contributions of the U.N. presence in the occupied territories have actually provided support for the Serbian occupiers and proven a major hindrance to forcing the Serbs to the negotiating table. In this light, I ask my colleagues to review Croatia's U.N. Ambassador Nobilo's discussion reprinted below about Croatia's refusal to renew the UNPROFOR an eighth time, and invite Members to take a good hard look at some of the causes of the deadlock and suffering which Crotia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have endured for too long. Moreover, my colleagues, this action by the Coratian Government is completely supported by the Croatian people as evidenced by two resolutions by the Croatian Parliament authorizing the Government's decision and a third binding the Government to this course. [From the Washington Post, Feb. 3, 1995] Croatia's Move Toward Peace (By Mario Nobilo, Croatian Ambassador to the U.N.) Last month, the Republic of Croatia decided to terminate the mandate of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in the occupied territories of Croatia. The decision is designed to reinvigorate the negotiating process and to reach a peaceful settlement of the territories, which are internationally-recognized as part of Croatia but illegally occupied by Serbia, with the cooperation of local Serbs. Contrary to the views held by some, including speculation in The Post's editorial of Jan. 18 (``Another Balkan War?'') Croatia did not take this action in order to pursue war with the local Serbs or their patrons in Belgrade. Our objectives are the exact opposite. The departure of UNPROFOR will shift the total cost of Serbian occupation from the international community to the Belgrade government. The $1 billion per year cost of maintaining UNPROFOR in Croatia has essentially become an ``occupation fee'' paid by U.N. member nations, including the United States, which itself contributes about $300 million. The presence of UNPROFOR provides the occupying forces with economic sustenance through a continued stream of hard currency, through aid deliveries, through UNPROFOR-paid rents, through fuel brokering, and through infrastructure maintenance and development. UNPROFOR is probably the largest employer in the occupied territories. Because Serbia is weakened from the effect of international sanctions, it cannot afford to fund both its activities in Bosnia and its support of Serbs occupying parts of Croatia. That makes it more likely that Serbia's President Milosevic will be compelled to work with the international community and Croatia to reach a negotiated settlement regarding Crotia's occupied territories. It is clear that UNPROFOR is not a real deterrent to war, in Croatia or in Bosnia and Herzegovina. If Crotia were indeed intent on reintegrating its occupied territories by force, it could have done so already. Croatia is further convinced that solving the problem of its occupied territories first can greatly improve the chances of a settlement in Bosnia along with the lines of the internationally-accepted Contact Group proposals. Here's why: A strong, reintegrated Croatia can better assist the Bosnian government through the Federation of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, thus forging a more effective balance of power in the region. Additionally, without having to maintain a 15,000-troop presence in Croatia, UNPROFOR can transfer resources to Bosnia and Herzegovina, where they are badly needed. U.N. Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali has recently called for an additional 7,000 UNPROFOR troops for Bosnia. He is unlikely to meet that need without tapping existing U.N. assets. There are risks associated with our decision regarding UNPROFOR. But Mr. Milosevic and his dependents in Croatia's occupied territories have used U.N. soldiers as a buffer to reaching an expeditious settlement of a situation which could go unsolved for years to come under the current circumstances. Croatia views such a statement as far more dangerous than taking a pragmatic, albeit dramatic, action that we are confident will result in an accelerated peace in the entire region of southeastern Europe.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. This bill would withhold assistance from any country that blocks the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to another country. Passage of this proposal would benefit directly situations such as that found in the Republic of Armenia. It is in our American interest to foster the great economic and political promise of Armenia by assuring a free flow of humanitarian assistance. Yet, Armenians are freezing and starving because Turkey has closed it borders to American assistance destined for land-locked Armenia. The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act would protect Armenia by making Turkey answerable for its acts. Turkey would have a choice: either bring to an end its blockade of humanitarian assistance for Armenia or lose its own foreign aid.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, many of us are about to return home, to the communities we represent and to the constituents we serve, to join in observing Lincoln Day. In the words of the man whose birth 186 years ago we celebrate on February 12 and whose memory we venerate, that commemoration is ``altogether fitting and proper.'' It also is, in my belief, remarkably timely when we pause to compare Mr. Lincoln's views on Government to what we understand is the mandate that brought us to Washington. Recently, when our neighbors on Capitol Hill, the Library of Congress, put on public display the original manuscripts of the Gettysburg Address, I joined with tens of thousands of our fellow Americans who visited this exhibition. While there I talked with members of the Library staff in charge of rare documents and was given a brief tour of the stacks in which are held some of the papers of our past Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln. I assure my colleagues and constituents, Mr. Speaker, that it was one of the more memorable moments of my life to hold in my hands correspondence and other materials actually written by Mr. Lincoln. And, of course, there was that simple signature we have seen reproduced so many times in so many places, ``A. Lincoln.'' The experience moved me to look anew at Lincoln works and words. At every turn it seems, Mr. Lincoln demonstrated a strict adherence to the ideals of our Founders. His proclamation in 1863 said: No service can be more praiseworthy and honorable than that which is rendered for the maintenance of the Constitution and the consequent preservation of free government. The Lincoln basic belief in self-government is compellingly clear in an 1858 Chicago speech: I have said very many times . . . that no man believed more than I in the principle of self-government; that it lies at the bottom of all my ideas of just government from beginning to end. Mr. Lincoln's definition of Government's purpose stands at the best I ever have encountered. Speaking in Springfield, IL in 1854, he said: The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot do so well for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The preeminent position of the people in public affairs was a Lincoln guiding light. As a Member of this House of Representatives, he spoke from the floor in 1848: In leaving the people's business in their own hands, we cannot be wrong. In his First Inaugural Address, President Lincoln asked in 1861: Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people; Is there any better or equal hope in the world? On Independence Day that year, the message to Congress from President Lincoln advised: The people themselves, and not their servants, can safely reverse their own deliberate decisions. And, from perhaps one of the most-repeated of Lincoln quotations comes his counsel about the ultimate wisdom of the people: You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln also addressed the meaning of mandates from the people who elect us. His 1861 speech in Pittsburgh as President-elect referring to the balloting behind him should admonish us today as we reflect on our own elections: We should do neither more nor less than we gave the people reason to believe we would when they gave us their votes. These are the Lincoln lessons. They are the Lincoln legacy. As I prepare to commemorate Lincoln Day with friends and family in Fresco, Mariposa, and elsewhere in California's 19th District, I pledge that my service will remain faithful to Lincoln principles.