[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4387-H4393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE REPUBLICAN VISION FOR AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich] is recognized for 60 
minutes.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come 
speak to the American people regarding the important issues of the day, 
and I would like to start off by commenting on how important words are, 
I think in conveying messages. In my short term here in Congress, I am 
a freshman, I have been here a little over a year, I have learned a 
couple of vital things, and that is that we have to be very, very 
careful about the words that we say to make sure that they are 
communicating exactly what we mean to the American people, because 
words are very important.
  It is in that spirit that I offer the following vision, in an attempt 
to determine a way to communicate to the American people the role and 
the mission of the Republicans here in Congress. If we can say things 
and put them down into easily understandable terms, using very symbolic 
figures, it can go a long way to explaining to the American people how 
we would like to go and where we would like to take this country. It is 
in that spirit that I offer this following vision.
  Let me use the simple symbol of a chair to illustrate where we are in 
America and I think where the Republican Congress would like to take 
this country. In starting with something such as this, I think it kind 
of illustrates where America is right now. I believe that before we can 
entrust or get the American people's trust in following us, we have to 
accurately describe where America is right now, and this portrait of 
this chair is a good illustration of American society. So welcome to 
America.
  Basically we have an unstable chair, something that does not provide 
very much freedom, something that does not provide very much security. 
This is really the condition of our country right now, I believe. You 
will notice the chair has four legs, but the problem is that none of 
the legs are the same size as the other legs on the chair.
  Look at the government leg, way too long. Look at the family leg. It 
would be very easy to sell the argument to

[[Page H4388]]

the American people that the family unit has basically been decimated 
over the last 30, 40 years with the notions of the Great Society and 
the Great Society mentality that this Congress has been operating under 
over the last 40 years. Business institutions and religious and civic 
institutions in this country are not operating up to their fullest 
capacity because of the large leg that knocks everything out of 
proportion and creates much instability and insecurity in the society.

  Take the next chart to further illustrate this in a different way, 
and that is by saying I think that it is safe to state that in America 
today our institutions are disproportionate to one another, and that is 
the basis or the cause of a lot of our civil and financial problems in 
this country.
  You will notice in the government institution, of all dollars spent 
on government, 70 percent of those dollars are spent at the Federal 
level, 30 percent of those dollars are spent at the State and local 
level.
  Religious institutions and business institutions, as I mentioned, are 
not operating at full capacity due to overtaxation and regulation and 
problems with civic institutions that do not really fill their proper 
role in society, that basically have been taken over by the government 
institution.
  The family institution has been decimated over the last 30 years.
  There are two ways that we can solve this problem, because we believe 
that the American people sent us to Congress in this wave of the 1994 
election to solve the problem of the reality that I just described. 
There are two ways that we can solve the problem.
  This is not the way to do it. This somewhat illustrates the current 
efforts that we have been going through during the last year with our 
great deal and our determination to downsize Federal Government. What 
we failed to do, though, in chopping off certain responsibilities and 
lopping them out of the government sector, is to take into 
consideration how the downsizing of Federal Government would have an 
effect on the other institutions in the American society.
  Now, I will say that Lyndon Johnson said it right. When he began to 
campaign for the Great Society in the early 1960's, he said ``Great 
Society.'' He did not say ``great government,'' even though that is 
what he did. He tried to solve all of society's problems through a 
great government, and it ended up getting us $5.5 trillion worth of 
debt and expanded the ranks of the poor and needy.
  Everything that government got into basically in many of the areas of 
our lives has made the problems worse, not better. So I think what the 
Republicans need to learn is that in addition to our concept of 
downsizing, we have to think in terms of relationships, of how to build 
these other institutions in this country so that they can begin to 
fulfill some of the obligations that we feel government should no 
longer be in.

  If Members would like to do it like this, we have a helter-skelter 
approach. It is not good for this country. Basically this is the result 
of a negative message, and anti-Great Society message, an 
antigovernment message.
  I think what we would like to do, the Republicans would like to do, 
is to paint an accurate picture of what America would look like after 
using the balanced budget process as a blueprint to get to a better 
America. That can be accomplished, I believe, in two ways. One is 
through the legislation that we would be accomplishing on the House 
floor and in the Senate and through the White House, and the other 
would be to illustrate how the issue of personal responsibility ties 
into the reestablishing of the family institutions and the downsizing 
of Federal Government.
  If we are to downsize Federal Government and take into consideration 
its effect on the other institutions in this country, and also build 
these other institutions up so that they are able to receive these 
responsibilities that we therefore determine are no longer the 
responsibility of the Federal Government, then it should occur in some 
of the following examples such as this:
  There are many who believe that once government entered into the 
social programs, that they actually made them worse. The war on poverty 
is not over. There is more poverty since war was declared on poverty by 
the Federal Government in the early 1960's. Many of the concepts of the 
Good Samaritan I think people agree are found in scripture, not in the 
Constitution. They are better met by civic and religious institutions 
in this country.
  We should begin designing tax overhaul problems in relationship to, 
with the objective, I should say, of shifting that responsibility from 
the institution of government over to civic and religious institutions. 
By that I mean providing generous deductions for contributions made to 
not only church groups but civic groups, nonprofit groups, private 
charities, anybody, any group that takes care of the poor and needy, so 
that as this fulfillment of that need to care for the poor and needy 
expands in this civic and religious institution, the social programs of 
the government are correspondingly reduced so that we can have a 
phaseout of government's participation, but the need is met and even 
met more effectively in this institution that begins to rebuild this 
one.

  Deregulation and tax relief, a mantra of the Republican Party, and 
justifiably so, will reduce the amount of overhead of the Federal 
Government. Regulation costs money, and they have to raise taxes in 
order to make the money in order to pay for the increased regulation of 
government. That is, as it is shifted down, it begins to rebuild the 
business institution because business can expand when they get tax and 
regulation relief, so we have a downsizing of that institution and a 
beginning of the rebuilding of the business institution.
  Third, an example of education and how much it can rebuild the family 
institutions is by making the point that the education system in this 
country must be answerable to the family unit, because parents are 
ultimately responsible for the education of their children, and not the 
government. I do not mean that everybody in this country should be home 
schoolers. What I do mean is that through local control of education, 
not Federal control, by the abolishment of the Department of Education, 
returning responsibility back to the community level, local control or 
a voucher system puts that responsibility back onto the family unit, so 
our parents can have more after choice in their child's education. It, 
too, reduces the amount of government.

                              {time}  2230

  On the issue of localizing, you have today 70 percent of all total 
dollars spent on the Federal Government, you have like laws that are 
current State level, and also local level. So it is to the benefit if 
you take all these programs and push them back down to the State level 
by block granting. Or if you push them down at the local level by 
further block granting to counties, you begin to reduce the amount of 
government by reducing the Federal Government's role in these problems, 
but still having government obligations met at the State and local 
level.
  Mr. Speaker, these are indications of how we start downsizing in such 
a way that we begin to rebuild these institutions.
  I want to make one point, and that is that we have begun to get some 
rebuilding of these institutions. But they are not operating at the 
full capacity that they could, and this will never occur at their full 
capacity without the issue of personal responsibility, which is the 
next slide, if you would like to go ahead and put that up there.
  The issue of raising the conscience of the American people is really 
a very important key in bringing stability and actually recreating a 
free society in America, and that is not a role of the government 
institution. It is the role of religious institutions.
  Now, civic organizations can take care of poor and needy, but it is 
the responsibility of the churches across the land to begin to raise 
the conscience of the American people so that they, the American 
people, can begin to operate effectively in these other institutions. 
By raising the conscience of the American people, it allows their 
capacity through religious and civic institutions to take over the 
social programs in this country. By raising the conscience of the 
American people in the family institution, it encourages personal 
responsibility so that parents are better parents, kids are better 
kids, marriages are not conducted frivolously, divorces are not 
conducted frivolously, people actually take serious responsibility 
within the family institution.

[[Page H4389]]

  Raising the conscience of the American people allows the business 
institution to expand through two things, by encouraging less lawsuits 
and by the establishment of peer review. By peer review I mean that 
doctors police doctors, lawyers police lawyers, like-minded business 
policies like-minded business so that peer review, those of us judging 
each other, acts as a buffer between direct government control and no 
government control at all. It provides a cost-effective way by 
decreasing the cost of regulation, therefore decreasing taxes on 
business, to allow that business institution to expand to its fullest 
capacity.
  So while you have downsized Federal Government, and the other issue 
is through raising the conscience of the American people, it allows us 
to flip this awkward percentage of large Federal, 70 percent being 
spent by Federal Government, and 30 percent at State and local 
governments, to be switched back down. Not only would we reduce the 
size of government, but that which we do spend is returned, 70 percent 
spent at the local level, 30 percent spent at the Federal level.
  I cannot tell you how many times I heard on the House floor, 
especially when we were talking about block granting crime money at the 
local level, various Members standing up here, and we were arguing for 
no strings attached, let the local people decide how best to take care 
of crime in their various districts and people arguing that you simply 
cannot trust those local elected officials because they will go spend 
it on something else. My statement is, by raising the conscience of the 
American people, we can give more responsibility to elected officials 
in this country so that we can begin to attack the arrogant assumption 
that the only elected officials that you can trust are the 536 that are 
in Washington right now.

  Through this idea I think what we begin to get is a proper vision of 
where we would like to take this country through a balanced budget 
process. And it is pretty much described in this one, which I call a 
free society, and that is where a Federal Government's role in this 
country is in equal proportion to the other institutions that form 
American society so that government is equal to religion, is equal to 
family, is equal to business. Not only that, but in a government 
institution the Federal Government's role in total spending is back to 
30 percent, State and local control is the larger share of 70 percent.
  Throughout history we have faced times of disproportionate 
institutions. Our country was developed because of the overly 
repressive monarchy in England, and that is what caused this 
disproportionate system for the Pilgrims to come to this new land. 
During the Industrial Revolution the business institution was 
disproportionate in its influence to other institutions in this 
country. During the inquisitions, an early church period, the religious 
institutions were far too disproportionate to the other institutions in 
this country. And in the last hundred years, through socialism, 
Communism, fascism we have experienced disproportionate government over 
the other institutions in this country. And in America we felt the 
ancillary effects of that through the Great Deal and also the Great 
Society.
  So this is the vision of America: this is a free society. It provides 
the maximum amount of freedom and security for Americans so that they 
can go on to begin to pursue life, liberty and happiness with the 
surest amount and the greatest of success. What you end up with in 
relationship to my first slide was the result of that, and you can go 
ahead and change those, and that is a chair that works, a chair much 
like society in that both of them provide freedom and security so that 
you may sit in a chair, discuss, read, go about your business, and 
government is constructed in such a way that people can pursue life, 
liberty and happiness and not worry about insecurities or lack of 
freedoms.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the vision of the Republican Party. This is a 
free society. This is when government is no longer any bigger than the 
religious institutions and civics institutions in this country, no 
longer bigger than the family institutions who have been restored to 
their full effectiveness, and no longer disproportionate to the 
business institutions providing a firm foundation for us to live on and 
experience the maximum amount of life, liberty and happiness in this 
country.
  So I submit that to the American people and appreciate the time.
  I do have time and want to yield to my friend and colleague from 
Maryland, Mr. Bob Ehrlich, who wants to begin a second portion of his 
presentation. I also welcome my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman 
from California, Andrea Seastrand. So, Bob, I want to switch over to 
you and give you the magic wand, and I will be back up on that seat 
there.
  Mr. EHRLICH. I thank my colleague from California. I also officially 
congratulate him upon his election to the presidency of the freshman 
class, and I welcome our colleague from California. Very well put, 
George, very well put.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the next half hour to engage my two 
colleagues in a discussion of what we see happening in America today, 
which is big labor bosses trying to buy themselves a Congress. I know 
the gentlewoman from California has some very, very strong views on 
this. I have taken the liberty actually of bringing my AFL-CIO report 
card, and blowing it up, and bringing it to the floor of this House 
because I know my two colleagues and I want to talk about exactly where 
big labor bosses are coming from the distinction of big labor bosses 
and how they have grown apart from the working folks in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do, with the permission of my 
colleagues, is go over, one by one, the major issues on this report 
card. I am going to start with a favorite, and I know the president of 
the freshman class, my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Radanovich], is a businessman voting against an increase in the minimum 
wage. We have just heard an hour of discussion concerning the merits of 
raising the minimum wage. During that discussion I did not hear one 
sentence uttered about the ultimate irony of raising the minimum wage 
which is putting at risk marginal workers in this country out of work.
  Every economic study I have ever seen, and, I submit, any economic 
study folks on the other side of the aisle have seen, holds the same 
result. When you raise the minimum wage, you automatically put x amount 
of marginal workers, unskilled, untrained, disabled workers, out of the 
work force, and that is compassion. That equals compassion. That is the 
traditional assumption that this majority challenges on this floor 
every day.
  I know the gentlewoman from California would like to make a comment 
about that.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Well, I would also say that we came here to do away 
with unfunded Federal mandates, and if there was anything that was a 
mandate, it is to increase the minimum wage, and it is just artificial.
  I say, why not raise it to $10 or $25? Why stop?
  Mr. EHRLICH. We could really be compassionate, let us get real 
compassionate. Why not $20? Why not? We could put a lot more money in a 
few workers' pockets, and we would cause an awful lot of unemployment.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Well, I think statistics have proven over the years 
that a minimum wage will not create one job. Statistics prove that we 
lose jobs for those very people that we are trying to help. And you 
know none of us want to people to stay in a minimum wage job.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say my children, Curt and Heidi, worked 
their way through high school and college with different jobs. They 
depended on those minimum wages. You know, there are very few folks 
that really wanted to give them more. They were training, they were 
learning about getting to a job on time, learning what it meant to be 
there and to follow some of the rules and some of the basics.
  Many of these minimum wage jobs apply to students across this Nation, 
both in high school and in college, and many of those students and 
young people are the very people, the minority students and such, that 
we are trying to help.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Another irony at work here, and of course we have the 
President of the United States acting in a very compassionate way in 
this

[[Page H4390]]

election year, trying to sell the American people on the notion that he 
supports an increase in the minimum wage. Yet it is words, it is these 
words that keep rebounding against the President.
  February 6, 1995, Bill Clinton: It, raising the minimum wage, is the 
wrong way to raise the incomes of low-wage earners. In 1995, a 
nonelection year; 1996, we see quite different words coming from this 
White House.
  The gentleman from California?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, my comment would be that the timing of 
this issue, at least in my view, and I have to let you know where I am 
coming from, and that is that basically I think that the establishment 
of a minimum wage really is a violation of the separation of government 
and business. I do not think that the Federal Government should be 
involved in the establishment of a minimum wage, No. 1.
  No. 2, this issue was raised, and the comment about the President 
illustrates this point as a diversionary tactic, to divert the Nation's 
attention away from the real business at hand in Washington. That is 
balancing the Federal budget, getting our Federal act in order, 
learning how we can privatize certain things that government does, 
learning how we can localize.
  This is a perfect example of things that probably should not be 
discussed on this floor of this House, is better left at the State 
level or even the local level for the establishment of minimum wages in 
States.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. If the gentleman will yield, we are going to be 
having an initiative on the ballot come November regarding the minimum 
wage. If there was someplace to discuss it, it would be at the State 
level.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, I think the two gentleman 
would agree with me, that the irony is the President was in control 2 
years. He had a House, he had a Senate. They could have increased the 
minimum wage, and instead we see comments such as on the board there, 
and they failed to do it, and you are right, he did do it for just 
getting us away from balancing the budget.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. It is a political issue to divert attention away from 
the more urgent business at hand, and that is balancing the budget.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I think there is a far larger point here 
that I know many of us have discussed on the floor of this House. 
Should not words have meanings, even in this town, even on Capitol 
Hill, even in election years? It seems the institutional memory of this 
administration is quite limited. If you listen to the State of the 
Union, or you listen to this President, words simply have no meaning. 
An eloquent speaker, a wonderful speaker, charismatic, great on TV, yet 
the words are empty. The words have no meaning.
  I think the American people want a little bit more out of their 
elected officials, both in the executive branch and the legislative 
branch. I know as I go door to door in the 2nd Congressional District 
of Maryland, people tell me they want their Representative to actually 
believe something.
  It has become a traditional view of politics. You go get elected to 
anything, the State legislature or the county council, the Congress of 
the United States, President of the United States, because you actually 
have principles, because you are carried forward to public service on 
the philosophical foundation of things that you believe in and the 
vision you have for the country.
  Mr. Speaker, words should have meanings.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. If the gentleman would yield, you mentioned 
principles. I know that, as we are discussing the minimum wage, we see 
polls where we see across America that perhaps Americans would like to 
see an increase in the minimum wage. But we came here as new Members to 
this Congress trying to change the policy, and I do not know about you, 
but I really cannot look at myself in the mirror to know that I hop on 
something that is popular instead of standing here and trying to share 
with the American people why this is not good policy and it is not 
going to be helpful to those people that we all say that we want to 
help.

                              {time}  2245

  It is not the compassionate thing to do. In fact, it is going to have 
the reverse. Here is an example where we might look at polls, but I 
think all of us came here to do what is right and not just what is 
correct for the next election.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Which is a radical thought in this town. It is a radical 
thought in this town that politicians would act on the basis of what 
individually he or she believes is best for the country, and not on the 
basis of what the latest poll would dictate.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is a radical thought in American 
politics. As I campaigned in my district, and I know you both find the 
same thing, people find that refreshing. They are stunned. Even people 
that believe in this opportunity agenda in the Congress of the United 
States still have a hard time believing that folks can go to Washington 
with ideas, with a philosophy, debate that philosophy, pass that 
philosophy, defend that philosophy, and actually believe in something, 
and not what the latest poll should dictate.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, you have 
your congressional report card there by the AFL-CIO. I just want to 
share with the two gentleman here today that I have the AFL-CIO news 
for April 22, and I will tell you, I made the front page, because I 
also have a picture here of my congressional report card with Andrea 
Seastrand. It is the same report card. I guess, as I said, I made the 
front page. It says, ``Lawmakers don't make grade. Extremists feel the 
sting,'' that is you and me, you know, and ``Ready Smear Campaign.''
  I would like to share with you the fact that that is not what I am 
hearing from the fellows and gals that belong to the unions in 
California on the central coast of California. I would just like to 
share the fact that I have a letter here from a gentleman from Santa 
Maria. I had also received one from Templeton, and a lady who is a 
firefighter from the northern end of the District, Atascadero, went on 
television and was upset with the way she is seeing her dues being 
spent.
  This gentleman says: ``I see that the freshman congressional class is 
a breath of fresh air. I praise you and your fellow congressional 
Republicans for tackling head on many of the important issues of 
today.'' He said:

       I am a blue collar union member. Many in our union feel the 
     same as I do on national issues. I am a registered 
     Republican, but our leadership is rabid Democrat. They 
     seem blind to the destruction that liberalism is causing 
     our Nation. They use our dues without regard to if the 
     membership wishes to attack our party. Many of us wish we 
     could stop our leadership from attacking your platform, 
     but are powerless in a very undemocratic organization. I 
     understand these attacks on you must frustrate and anger 
     you, but I plead with you not to look on all blue collar 
     workers as mindless robots. We still vote our conscience. 
     Our contracts with management are the way we ensure a 
     decent standard of living and protection from abuse. 
     Please keep going.

  I would just say, I am sure that is what you heard. They had an 800 
number to call us, the ads on television from the AFL-CIO. I am sure my 
colleagues from California and Maryland heard what I did. They used 
that 800 number and said, ``Please, do not give up. We believe in what 
the freshman class is doing. We believe in what this Congress is doing, 
and do not believe that all union workers feel the way that 
bureaucratic leadership in Washington, D.C. feels.''
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from California wants 
to add a point, but I have to add just a quick observation. The only 
thing left out of that letter, and that was very well written, was the 
fact that also many Democrat members of unions who are blue collar, who 
are conservatives, share that gentleman's views.
  How ironic that the big labor bosses who want to buy this Congress, 
who are lying to the American people every day, many of them live out 
in nice valleys with big houses and make lots of money. I will bet you 
they are the rich. I will bet you they are rich people, and we hear a 
lot of demagoguery about class warfare and the rich on this floor.
  I do not think, and I submit to the gentleman from California this 
observation, I will bet you a lot of those big labor bosses who are 
trying to buy this Congress make an awful lot of money, a heck of a lot 
more than that gentleman who wrote the gentlewoman from California.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I believe that is the case, Mr. Speaker. I think, 
too,

[[Page H4391]]

what the American people need to know when they are confronted with 
what I call fearmongering like this, all the F's that were on the 
report cards, and how you are against so many good things, reminds me 
of a scene in a jungle somewhere where a group of people, say 10 
people, get stuck in a murky old swamp and they are up to their armpits 
in swamp water, and they are stuck in the mud and cannot get out. They 
have been in there so long, and by the way, the Great Society is the 
name of the swamp, and they are stuck in there and they cannot leave. 
They have been there so long that they cannot think that there is 
anything better than that swamp.

  So finally a couple of people out of those 10 get the inspiration. 
They see a hill, a shining hill, and want to begin to stir the efforts 
of those to begin to get themselves out of the swamp, and you have 
people full of fear, so used to being stuck in the swamp that they 
cannot imagine anything different and do not want to take what even 
might be a perceived risk to get out of the swamp and change to a 
better country, which I call what the Republicans are trying to do.
  That is a sad state of affairs when you have to defend the order that 
we are in this country right now, because many people feel, and many 
people believe that we indeed are stuck in a swamp. But many people 
believe that they would love to be inspired by that shining hill and 
make the journey out of the swamp and onto the hill. The people that 
attack you the people that give you F's, are the same people saying let 
us stay in the mud because we fear change. That is really what the big 
sin is.
  One more point that I want to make, too, on the issue of minimum 
wage, standing up for families and seniors, and, you bad person who got 
the F, educational opportunities. All of those things are good things, 
but if we are going to change this country for the better, we have to 
start answering the question: If those are things of value to me, to 
Andrea, to Bob, to everybody in this country, if they are so valuable 
to you, why on earth would you trust those things to a Washington 
bureaucrat?
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is that a 
question?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes; answer me.
  Mr. EHRLICH. The gentleman just used the term ``fear'' twice in the 
last minute. That is a great lead-in to category 2, issue 2, standing 
up for families and seniors. ``Ehrlich voted to slash Medicare and 
Medicaid,'' my personal favorite whopper from the big labor bosses.
  How many times have you heard the word ``extremist'' out there in 
these ads? How many times have you heard the word ``slash,'' have you 
seen the word ``slash'' from the big labor bosses?

  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Or ``gut''?
  Mr. EHRLICH. The last time I checked, under the Republican budget 
reconciliation proposal, the Balanced Budget Act, Medicare spending per 
beneficiary was to increase from $4,800 a year to $7,200 a year. Yet 
they used the term ``slash and burn,'' and the fear and demagoguery. 
But do you know what, I do not think it is going to work, because the 
philosophical foundation of this tactic is that seniors are dumb. They 
have to think that the seniors of this country are dumb; that they 
cannot read; that the seniors will ignore the fact that the trustees 
just last week, and we have a quote coming up, I know, from my trusty 
assistant, reported just last week in the Washington Post, April 29, 
1996: ``The Medicare trust fund that pays hospital bills for 39 million 
elderly and disabled people will go bankrupt sooner and accumulate far 
deeper deficits over the next decade than previously projected by the 
trustees.''
  Now, short-term political calculations, which have ruled this town 
for 40 years, would dictate that the three of us ignore this language, 
because you know what, that will get you reelected. The folks on that 
side of the aisle know that. It kept one party in control of this town 
for 40 years on the basis of fear and class warfare. But I do not think 
that the seniors in the Second Congressional District of Maryland sent 
me here to be a politician.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I hope I will get 
some answers here. Was I not mistaken? Did you not say that the current 
amount that a beneficiary gets from Medicare is about $4,800 a year?
  Mr. EHRLICH. That is correct.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. If I am to believe that you are slashing and burning 
Medicare, my assumption then would be that we must be cutting that, 
then, from $4,800 a year to, what, $2,300 or $2,200.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Again, what was the budget figure that the Republicans 
propose for the next 7 years? Was it an increase of $7,200 in the year 
2002, which was very close to the President's number, by the way?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I am confused. Is that an increase?
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, apparently the gentleman from California 
was brought up on new math. I would just say, we know there is a big 
difference, and the big difference has had a big plus sign on it, so we 
are actually increasing Medicare spending per beneficiary. We are also 
going to take in more people into the system.

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Excuse me, you two, but that is very extreme, I want 
to tell you.
  Mr. EHRLICH. There is that word again.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think, 
too, we talk about the seniors, but also our union members back home 
understand what we are trying to do. They are going to see through 
this.
  I have a copy here of one of our local Capitol newspapers, the Hill. 
It says, ``Local unions take back in labor blitz.'' So the people back 
home are taking a seat, going in the back seat, while the union bosses 
here on Capitol Hill, big special interests that make those high-priced 
salaries and such, they are the ones calling the shots on this 
congressional report card. Our union people at home did not give this. 
This came all from a PR firm here in Washington, DC. That is what we 
are up against.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I know the 
gentlewoman and the gentleman are both familiar with the poll that was 
recently conducted, a nationwide poll of union members, workers, people 
that built this country: horrible results for the big labor bosses. I 
know the results, and I know my two colleagues are familiar with the 
results, but I would like to share the results with the American people 
tonight.
  We are talking about union folks, working folks. Eighty-seven percent 
support welfare that requires work and is of limited duration. They 
also support a balanced budget amendment by a huge margin, with 82 
percent of union folks in favor of a constitutional requirement that 
Washington keep its fiscal house in order.
  More than three-quarters of union families in this country voiced 
their support for tax cuts for working families. Think about those 
numbers. Demagogues hate facts. That is why the big union bosses who 
love big government, who want to buy this Congress, issue ``report 
cards'' such as this one. They cannot stand facts. They cannot stand 
the light of day. They cannot stand the fact that people that work for 
a living, people that built this country, are not bought and paid for 
by the left wing of the Democratic party, as they are. That is why we 
have these report cards. They just cannot stand it.

  When we see poll results like this, it makes us feel pretty good, 
does it not?
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. What I found amazing about that survey is when 
informed about those Washington union bosses here on the Hill, when 
they found out, the union members back home found out that those bosses 
took their union dues to more or less come up with this demagoguery, 
the report card and the ads that are attacking us on television and 
radio, 59 percent said they want to ask for a refund for their dues.
  Mr. Speaker, the folks that picketed me on this one particular day, 
it was interesting, because I found out that one came from Los Angeles, 
one came from San Francisco, another was from San Jose. One was the 
executive director, who is the paid bureaucrat. The regular union 
members who are making a living were out working.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Is the gentlewoman telling me those folks were paid 
to picket you?
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. I would certainly say they must be on a payroll. They 
came from San Francisco.

[[Page H4392]]

  Mr. EHRLICH. Paid protesters? It is good work if you can get it.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. A paid protester. We call them rent-a-protester. This 
is an interesting thing; that when union Members found out that their 
dues were even increased, and that they were used to attack the new 
ideas that we are trying to push through here and work through in 
Congress, 59 percent said they would ask for a refund of their dues.
  The letter I read and the lady that appeared on a local television 
who is a firefighter, she says she is tired of her hard-earned money 
being used in such a way when she agrees with what we are trying to do 
in this different Congress; as I say, the Congress with a new attitude.
  They want to see that balanced budget, they want to see a $500 tax 
credit per child, they want to see a line-item veto. They want to see a 
change in Washington, DC. It is those Washington union bosses that, you 
know, they are gasping. They are on their last legs. They know if they 
do not get control of this House once more, it is kind of gone for a 
long, long time. Their special perks, their large salaries--here is the 
president, $192,500 a year. A chauffeur is getting $53,143 for the 
union boss. These are people that are living off my folks, your folks 
in Maryland, and the gentleman from the central coast of California, 
they are living off of our blue-collar workers.

                              {time}  2300

  I think the moment many of these members find out more about this we 
are going to see a change.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I think you need to get back to the fact that when 
the gentlewoman from California, Andrea Seastrand, was mentioning that 
the rank and file member, even the rank and file members of the unions, 
they want a balanced budget. They want welfare reform. They want these 
changes to the American society. Not because they want to give tax 
breaks to the rich, not because they want to promote class warfare to 
keep things the way they are, simply because they see that as the road 
to a better country, to a better America, not for certain people but 
for everybody so that everybody, depending on how they were born into 
this world and what their lot in life is, has the opportunity to better 
themselves.
  That is what is so scary, I think, because after 40 years of 
operating things the way that they have been used to operating in this 
House, they love it in the mud and they do not want to change. It has 
become very comfortable. Change is scary, and you have got to learn a 
new way to count. That is not all that easy. Those are the things that 
we come up here--by the way, we are all freshmen and proud of it, and I 
think that those are the changes that scare the living daylights, not 
out of the American people, because they know what they want, they tell 
us what they want. They want a balanced budget. They want welfare 
reform. They want a better country as a result of that for them and 
everybody else. It is not that they are scared. It is those that have 
been hanging on to power and having been so used to having power for 
the last 40 years.
  They cannot begin to grapple with the idea that maybe their 
philosophy was wrong to begin with and they have to begin to accept new 
realities. That is what the freshmen have done here in the new 
Congress. That is the beachhead that we have established. That is the 
change that is beginning to operate in this town finally.
  Mr. EHRLICH. I would add this point, I want to get back to education 
and I want to get back to the TEAM Act. I want to go right to the 
balanced budget, because it includes my favorite whopper: the rich, tax 
cuts for the rich.
  How many times do we see class warfare strategy utilized on the floor 
of this House? The bad news for the folks that we are talking about, 
the working people who built this country, what they do not know and 
what the bosses failed to tell them is that they are rich. They make 
$25,000, $35,000, $45,000 a year. They are rich. Do you know how you 
can prove it? How many times have you heard on the floor of this House, 
the Republicans are slashing Medicare to make tax cuts for their rich 
buddies? Do we hear that every day?
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. We hear it day in an day out.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Do we hear it on radio and TV? Depending on whose study 
you believe, every study I have been concludes that under the 
Republican sponsored bill, which is part of the Contract with America, 
between 60 and 70 percent of the families or the tax cut that we were 
talking about would go to families making between $30,000 and $75,000 a 
year, between 60 and 70 percent of that tax cut would get to families 
making between $30,000 and $75,000 a year. So these are facts.
  If you place that fact next to what we hear on the floor of this 
House every day, one could only conclude, in a logical way, that folks 
who make between $30,000 and $75,000 a year are rich. And I am here to 
tell the big union bosses in this country that if they think the folks 
who sent me here who make $25,000, $35,000, $45,000 a year think they 
are rich, I would suggest those big union bosses leave their big houses 
out in the country and go talk to people who are still working for a 
living who must balance their budget, who believe the Federal 
Government is out of control, who understand our tort system is out of 
control, who understand the need for regulatory reform, and who 
understand the nature of government which will grow and grow and grow 
and grow unless the budget is brought back into balance.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I want to propose something here. Say for example 
person A paid $20 in income taxes to the United States Government and 
person B paid $10 in income taxes, and we in the Congress decide to 
give a 50 percent tax rebate. So the person paying $20 in taxes gets a 
$10 rebate. The person who pays $10 worth of taxes gets a $5 rebate. 
Now, that is basically because one person paid more and the other paid 
less. They get the equal amount in percentage backs.
  My question is, if you believe that, do you really think that you 
want the Federal Government getting involved in income redistribution, 
which would mean that the person that paid in 20 does not get 10 back, 
he gets 5 back, and the person who paid in 10 does not get 5 back, they 
get 10 back? Do you really trust the Federal Government to start 
getting involved that closely in that detail in your life, and do you 
really believe in income redistribution? Is that what we are here to 
do? It is a simple fact that the person who paid 20 gets 50 percent 
back. The person who paid 10 also gets 40 percent back. That is not 
unfair. That is fair. You cannot call that tax cuts for the rich.

  Mr. EHRLICH. You can call it that.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. It is equal in its percentage of return. Only a 
bumblehead would buy the argument that that is tax breaks for the rich.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. I would just say, I guess he would be an extremist.
  Mr. EHRLICH. My favorite term in this debate.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. I would like to say that it is interesting, because 
when we talk about these things, we see, we talk about being the 
freshmen here trying to change the way Washington has done business for 
all these years. I am in possession here of a Washington Post article 
where the headline states, ``GOP Freshmen Top House Democrats Hit 
List.'' It goes on about the AFL-CIO hit list. And I think that people 
should understand that when they see those ads on the central coast of 
California in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties on their local 
television sets, they should realize that my colleague in Las Vegas, 
John Ensign,  is hit with that same ad. That gentleman saying our 
congresswoman voted to cut Medicare and to gut education spending and 
so on should realize again high-priced PR firms from Washington, DC, 
ordered by those union bosses, they are after John Ensign, they are 
after me. They are after--those union bosses are after Rick White and 
Randy Tate in Washington and Jim Bunn. the gentlemen might be amused to 
know that Jim Bunn from Oregon's ad was on my local television station 
in Santa Barbara. They sent the wrong video to the wrong place. I do 
not know where I was floating and where I appeared in this country, but 
it is very orchestrated and it is paid by those union bosses to a high-
priced public relations firm.
  I just think the people should know how their especially our union 
members that are in our districts, how their dollars are being utilized 
to fight what we are trying to do on this House floor.

[[Page H4393]]

  Mr. EHRLICH. Of course, this whole debate is chock full of irony. You 
have big union bosses asking the working people in this country to take 
their hard-earned money to pay big time media consultants to run ads to 
defeat folks in this Congress who have an opportunity agenda which will 
benefit working people.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Not only advertising in the form of radio, 
television, but direct mail, phone banks, door-to-door campaigns. I 
have been under siege, as I call it, since last April, a whole year. 
Here is a local article from one of my local newspapers, Seastrand 
Under Siege. Not only do they do it in advertising and direct mail, but 
they are bodily sending people to protest at my office. But also there 
is a gentleman here whose picture, Tim Allison, who is my Project '96 
coordinator. He is somebody who is coming from outside the district in 
my district to organize against me.
  I say all is fair in love and war and politics. If folks at home want 
to organize against Andrea Seastrand and say she is not doing it, that 
is the way it does go. But I think be you Democrat, independent, 
Republican, Libertarian, whatever your philosophy, I think we should 
all be outraged to think that that special interest money from 
Washington, DC is bringing in a gentleman such as this one, I do not 
know where he lives. They have done that in Jim Longley's district in 
Maine. They have done it in many of our districts. In fact, some of our 
Members are trying to find out who their Project '96 coordinator is. 
Not only are they doing it in advertising, they are actually sending an 
organizer into the district.
  Mr. RANDOVICH. I think you need to ask the question, why are they 
doing that? That is simply because they have had influence, a special 
influence on the Congress for the last 40 years. And they are going to 
do anything they can to get that special interest influence back. It is 
plain and simple. It is power and the loss of it.
  We came here to undo things in Washington because of too much 
government and too much government control. And we are here to 
localize; we are here to privatize government. They do not like it 
because they like it when they had influence. And under the old 
administration that was here for 40 years, they ran this country into 
the ground to the tune of $5.5 trillion worth of debt. They want to get 
the reins back so that the can run us deeper into debt.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. I would just ask for the gentleman to continue to 
yield to finish my comments. It is just interesting, because I have 
list upon list here of union expenditures, whether it is the salaries, 
the chauffeurs or the big perks, the free rent, the big ticket perks, 
whether it is condos or purchasing videos or purchasing artwork or 
whether it is gifts, on and on, luncheons, meals, convention 
conferences, page after page where my folks at home are trying to do it 
with their blue collar job, they are trying to make a living, in many 
instances both spouses are working in the family, here the big union 
bosses living off more or less the fat of the land are upset because we 
are trying to bring some tax relief and some common sense for our folks 
at home.

  So with that, I just enjoyed being with my colleagues today, and I 
thank you for letting me participate.
  Mr. EHRLICH. We thank the gentlewoman.
  I would just like to add one further observation. I hope we will be 
able to do this again in the near future, because this is fun. This is 
the fun part of the job. We can talk to the American people without 
anybody filtering our words, directly to the folks that sent us here.
  I just need to, because it is one of my favorites from the report 
card, talk about the TEAM Act. We all received the same report card.
  Protecting your rights as workers. Congressman Ehrlich voted for the 
so-called TEAM Act, which allows employers to, listen to the words, I 
would ask the American people to listen to the words here, which allows 
employers to control who represents employees in discussions about 
wages, hours and other working conditions, H.R. 743, September 27, 
1995.
  Now, we have made this point time and time again tonight. Demagogs 
hate facts. They hate facts. Because facts kill demagogs. The 
Protecting Your Right as Workers Act, H.R. 743, specifies the 
following: Organizations, these new organizations will not have the 
authority to serve as the exclusive bargaining representative of 
employees. Second, they will not be able to enter into collective 
bargaining agreements. Third, workplaces that already unionized are 
specifically exempted under the bill.
  Now, we are going to, hopefully, I know we are running out of time, 
we will hopefully have time to go over the two categories that we 
missed. But the fact needs to be made to the American people, the facts 
are so dangerous even in this town.
  One thing, just a suggestion I throw out this evening to my 
colleagues in front of me and to the conservative Democrats who 
supported us so much in these debates and to my Republican colleagues 
and to the American people is that facts always kill demagogs. One 
thing that we do in our office, when people call me up and they say, 
Ehrlich, you say X and Gephardt said Y, or Gingrich said X and Fazio 
said Y or Hoyer said Y, I do not know what to believe. In our office, 
and I will throw this open to the folks in the second district of 
Maryland, all across the country tonight, do not believe us if you 
choose not to. If you are so cynical about politics, if you are so 
cynical about Members of Congress regardless of party, do not believe 
any word you have heard from the three of us tonight, nor should you 
believe what you hear from that podium day after day. Just get the 
facts. Call our office. I will send you the bill. I will send you the 
budget numbers. I am sure my two colleagues would agree with me. We 
will send you the raw numbers. We will send you the actual bills. You 
figure it out.
  Because I will not run a campaign on the foundation that the American 
people are dumb, that seniors cannot read the newspaper, that seniors 
do not expect this Congress to save Medicare. I will not run a campaign 
on the basis of class warfare or generational warfare, where you turn 
grandparents against grandchildren, where the guy making $20,000 a year 
is encouraged to be jealous of the woman making $28,000. That is not 
the way you run an economy. That is not the way you run a House. That 
is not the way I am going to run my campaign.
  Let the word go out to the big union bosses, class warfare, 
generational warfare, this phony stuff will not work because the 
people, the American people can read and they can write and they can 
learn and they know better. I thank the gentleman.

                              {time}  2315

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Ehrlich from Maryland and 
Mrs. Seastrand from California. In closing I would like to say that our 
case to the American people, and you are right, this is the opportunity 
for us to come unedited to the American people and let them know our 
opinions and let them judge for themselves, because through the ballot 
box, the American people are the ultimate judge of who should sit in 
this Congress and whose philosophy should prevail.
  But I would say that we are here to do a job, and the job is not to 
promote class warfare, not to make the rich more richer at the expense 
of the poor, or the poor more rich at the expense of the rich. It is 
simply to build a better country. And we believe that by our efforts of 
balancing the budget, using the balanced budget as a blueprint to 
change this country, that we are changing America for the better, for 
the betterment of everybody, for equal opportunity for everybody. We 
are changing America for the better.
  We are not playing silly games, and we are determined to do that, and 
that is our job. And I hope people will realize that the changes that 
we want to make through a balanced budget process, by localizing 
government, by privatizing government, will make America a better 
place, will make America a better place not only for you and I, but for 
every American in this country.

                          ____________________