Sanford Bishop

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, for a number of us, the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole struck close to home. Craig Freeman, a 12-year Navy veteran who suffered multiple injuries, is from Moultrie in my area of southwest Georgia. Thankfully, he will soon be well enough to visit his family on leave. But some of his shipmates remain hospitalized, and 17 of them will never see their loved ones again. These brave young Americans willingly went into harm's way, and, like others who have paid the price for our freedom, they shall forever remain in our hearts. We extend our sympathy to the families. We also express our rage. But that is not enough, Mr. Speaker. We must resolve to fight back against these insane acts by committing the country's full resources in an aggressive effort to determine who is responsible, to see that justice is done, and to do everything possible to deter such acts in the future. As Navy Secretary Richard Danzig pointed out, our memory is long and our reach is longer. As a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I will continue working to ensure that the country is fully prepared to strike back against these forces of evil.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Dixon), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman, for the outstanding work that they have done and also the work of the staff which is so invaluable in helping us to come up with this work product. Mr. Speaker, months ago, during the debate on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's reported authorization bill, I highlighted several very positive features of the bill and applauded the bipartisanship and the excellent cooperation in the work of the committee under the leadership of the chairman and the ranking member. I am pleased to note that this conference report sustains the important initiatives and actions recommended in the House bill. This outcome, too, is testament to the sound judgment and hard work of the committee leadership and, indeed, of all my colleagues on the committee. During our meetings with the Senate, and our discussions with the administration, concern arose over a House proposal to require the National Reconnaissance Office to contract separately from the Air Force for the large rockets that carry our reconnaissance satellites into orbit. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence adopted this proposal after substantial investigations and hearings following the disturbing and costly string of launch failures and after several years of unjustified volatility in the NRO's launch budget. The Subcommittee on Tactical and Technical Intelligence, on which I serve as ranking member, concluded that there would be greater accountability and sounder fiscal management if the NRO were assigned clearer responsibility for this aspect of its overall mission. At the same time, I appreciate the concerns that this step could contribute to deterioration of the partnership between the Air Force and the NRO in managing U.S. national security space launch programs. In this regard, I would cite the clear guidance in the statement of managers that we expect the NRO and the Air Force to continue working closely together, including negotiating contracts with industry together to ensure favorable prices. I would add also that I expect the NRO's contract awards to provide appropriate support to DoD's policy of maintaining a competitive space launch industrial base. The NRO and the Air Force are of course subject to higher management authority, and the NRO director himself an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force. I would expect that DoD management could check any harmful centrifugal forces in the NRO-Air Force relationship. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by applauding the vigorous steps contained in the conference report to overcome serious management and resource problems at the National Security Agency and to improve the ability of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency to exploit and distribute imagery collected by satellites and aircraft. These agencies and their respective missions remain absolutely critical to diplomacy and military preparedness. I think it is a great conference report. I think we are moving forward. I urge my colleagues and the House to adopt it. I think the committee has done a good job, and we have served our colleagues and the country well.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 2001 conference report on the Agriculture appropriations bill that provide critically needed funding to meet both the short-term and long-term needs of the country's farming community, which is struggling valiantly to survive during this period of increasingly high production costs and persistently low commodity prices. The bill includes $3.5 billion in new emergency relief that many deserving farmers must have to get through the hard times; funding for crucial research projects that are needed to ensure the future competitiveness and prosperity of U.S. farming; and a wide range of programs to promote land and water conservation, health and nutrition, and the economic well-being of our rural areas. I fought for these programs, both as a member of the Committee on Agriculture and as a Representative in Congress of an area in Georgia that is deeply rooted in the farming tradition. In many respects, this is a good bill. In the area of research, for example, it appropriates more than a million dollars for work at the Peanut Research Laboratory in Dawson, thanks to an agreement I secured on this floor with my colleague from Georgia who serves on the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee; $300,000 for the University of Georgia's National Center of Peanut Competitiveness; $500,000 for addressing peanut food allergy risks; $250,000 for research in Tifton, Georgia, on crop yield losses caused by nematodes; and $78 million for boll weevil eradication projects, which can ensure a more secure future for our farmers and for our economy in general. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I remain concerned about the level of funding appropriated for emergency relief. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to determine the crop loss threshold to qualify for emergency help. I have called on Secretary Glickman to set aside a threshold that is well below 35 percent. With sharply increased fuel costs, many farmers in Georgia and in other areas of the country as well face a crisis even with crop losses that may fall below 35 percent. One of the challenges confronting the Secretary under this bill is where to set the threshold and still have sufficient funds to provide meaningful levels of relief. I pray that will be enough. While the $3.5 billion is less than I advocated, I would add that this is substantially more than we had. There are many positive features in this bill. I urge Members to support the bill.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago a bipartisan majority here in Congress passed the Defense budget that substantially increased funding for the Armed Forces, launching a rebuilding process that is gradually addressing the deficiencies in readiness and quality of life in military service that had developed over many years of post-Cold War downsizing. Rebuilding has not been as fast as I would like and certainly not as fast as the men and women at the bases located in the part of Georgia that I have the privilege of representing would like. But, on a bipartisan basis, we are moving in the right direction. For one thing, this bill authorizes a reorganization plan prepared by Army Secretary Caldera to shut down the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, and to open a new program with a restructured curriculum and with a strong independent oversight that includes congressional representation on the school's board of visitors. This program, which teaches professionalism and the principles of democracy to Latin American military and government personnel, is an important instrument of U.S. policy in our hemisphere; and I commend Congress for its farsighted action on this issue. The bill also is commendable for stepping up the process of raising the quality of life for all Americans who are serving in our military and for those who faithfully served in the past. This includes the health care benefits for our veterans. And for active duty personnel, it includes a pay raise, new housing facilities and allowances, new reenlistment incentives, new child care centers, new educational assistance and establishment of a thrift savings plan, not to mention the funding for new equipment and weaponry that will greatly improve working conditions and our readiness. Mr. Speaker, this bill keeps our country moving in the right direction, and I urge all of our colleagues to give it their full support by voting for this rule and voting for the bill.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to our distinguished colleagues, certainly the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for arranging this evening's special order in recognition of the contributions made by the country's historically black colleges and universities. These 105 institutions located in the District of Columbia and in 23 States from New York to California began to emerge more than 140 years ago, thrusting open the doors of opportunity and promise for millions of African Americans. These centers of learning have enriched the lives of their students, their parents and families and the communities and the regions that they serve. As a matter of fact, they have made contributions that have strengthened our entire country enriching the lives of all Americans. For me, this special order has a very personal meaning. I literally grew up within the environment of a historically black college. This was in Mobile, Alabama, and the college was Bishop State Community College, which got its start in 1927 as a branch of Alabama State Teachers College. In 1965, the branch, as it was called, gained its independence and became Mobile State Junior College where my father, Dr. Sanford D. Bishop, Sr., served as the first president. My mother incidentally was the librarian at the college, and it was literally true that the campus and family life were very closely interwoven as I spent my formative years on and about the campus there. In 1971, Mobile State became Bishop State Junior College by an act of the Alabama legislature and later Bishop State Community College in recognition of the leadership that my late father provided in building that college into the modern, flourishing institution that it has become. Today, it offers a wide variety of courses for our student enrollment that exceeds 4,000. A college that is recognized for its academic excellence and which is, perhaps, especially noted for turning out highly skilled health care professionals. When I decided to attend college away from home, as many young people do, my choice was Morehouse College in Atlanta, my father's alma mater, an institution that had grown from a small Baptist school when founded in 1867 to become a part of a sprawling college complex, Atlanta University Center Complex, in providing studies in liberal arts, religion, philosophy, business administration and the sciences. It is a place known for its leaders in the struggle to move our country closer to fulfilling its promise of freedom and opportunity for all from presidents like Dr. John Hope and Dr. Ben Mays to the most famous graduate, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., not to mention prominent leaders in the entertainment field like Spike Lee and Samuel L. Jackson. Today I have the privilege of representing the Second Congressional District of Georgia, which is the home of Albany State University, where, as we have heard, Dr. Portia Holmes Shields serves as president. Dr. Shields is, of course, the sister of our own friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). Albany State, which was founded 97 years ago as a Bible and vocational training institute, now serves a widespread area of southwest Georgia, and it provides a wide range of bachelor's and graduate degrees. I often visit the campus in Albany where I always gain energy and ideas and inspiration from the relationship that I have with the faculty and the students. Albany State has implemented what it calls a total quality approach, where the academic achievement translates into both commitment to the community and the skills and knowledge needed to compete in the workplace. Incidentally, in 1994 and 1998, Albany State was submerged in water from the flooding of the Flint Rivers as a result of Tropical Storm Alberta. They developed a motto the Unsinkable Albany State, and they have rebounded, rebuilt and now have a new campus that is flourishing. Also we have Fort Valley State University in Fort Valley, Georgia, which is one of the 1890 Land Grant Colleges, the only one in Georgia. It has provided agriculture, education and liberal arts training for many, many years with many prominent graduates who have excelled in business and politics and medicine and other fields of endeavor. My good friend Dr. Oscar Prater is the President there. There are historically black colleges and universities throughout much of the school with records and achievement very similar with those that I am very familiar with from a relatively new facility such as LaGuardia Community College in New York City to the long-established Wilberforce University in Ohio which was founded in 1856, to Compton Community College founded in 1927. All have made contributions that loom large as the history of the country continues to be written. Congratulations to everyone who has helped these colleges and universities carry out their historic mission, including everyone here in Congress on both sides of the aisle who have helped provide the increased support for our HBCUs. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and my other colleagues for having the foresight to have this special order to give recognition that of course is long overdue to a group of institutions that have really contributed greatly to the greatness of America and the world. Godspeed to all of these institutions as they continue to help make this Nation's promise a full reality.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for yielding me this time. I am deeply saddened today by the loss of our friend and colleague, Paul Coverdell. His passing is not only a great loss for Georgia and our Nation, it is indeed a personal loss for me. I first met Senator Coverdell in 1974, when he came to Columbus, Georgia, where I lived, and he did his best to recruit me to run as a Republican for the State Senate. Senator Coverdell was not successful in that endeavor, but he impressed upon me his commitment to integrity in government and his commitment to our two-party system. I eventually ran for the legislature 2 years later as a Democrat, and I have served with Paul, I guess now for nearly 20 years, both as a member of the General Assembly and as a member of our State's delegation here in Congress. He and I worked together on a number of issues over the years, and he was an extraordinary leader whose flexibility, his ability and commitment, and his integrity were recognized by anyone who knew him and had the opportunity to work with him. He was a thoughtful and soft-spoken man, but he was a tenacious fighter for all of the causes that he believed in. Shakespeare wrote, ``All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; one man in his time plays many parts . . .'' So it was with Paul. He was a soldier, having served in the Army in Korea and the Republic of China. He was a legislator, and emerged as one of the most ardent defenders of our American freedoms and our democracy, as a real true fighter for our two-party system. He was a Senator. He was elected by his colleagues to leadership in the U.S. Senate where he served as adviser, counselor, supporter, confidant for the Republican Party, and he gave an important voice to how our government conducts its business. As a humanitarian, Paul dedicated a segment of his life to leading the Peace Corps, an organization that needs no accolades in its efforts to lift the untouchables to places of respectability and to bring life and quality of life to people all across the world. That was Paul Coverdell's commitment. He made numerous contributions in the Peace Corps, such as redesigning the agency's mission to serve the emerging democracies in Europe. Paul was a family man. He loved Nancy and his family, and he always held them dear. But Paul was also a statesman; and everything that he did, he did it with dignity and with respect and with courtesy. I have two personal stories or recollections and memories of Paul. I have shared one, and that was his efforts in our conversations as he worked to try to recruit me as a Republican candidate for the State Senate in 1974. But even more important than that was the kind of individual that Paul was, the kind of integrity that he had. He was a man who was committed to integrity, who was committed to fairness, and who was committed to that which was right. My colleagues may remember that former State Senator Julian Bond had been a member of the Georgia State House of Representatives and had made some statements regarding the Vietnam War which angered his colleagues in the Georgia House. They got together, passed a resolution, and expelled him from membership in the Georgia House. So he could not take his seat. Then Representative Bond filed a lawsuit, took it all the way to the Supreme Court; and the Supreme Court had to order the State House to grant him his seat to represent his constituents. Shortly thereafter, Julian Bond ran for the State Senate and was elected overwhelmingly and became a member of that august body. But the hostility was so great in the Georgia House because of the resentment for Senator Bond and what he stood for that any piece of legislation that he offered that passed the Senate, even if it passed unanimously, once it got to the House it was doomed to a certain death, a certain death. So Paul and Julian were friends. Anything that Julian felt so strongly about that he wanted it to be passed he discussed with his friend, Paul Coverdell. Paul would take Julian's ghost-written legislation and he would offer it under his name; and when it got to the House, it would secure the usual passage. Paul did that not because he wanted the limelight, not because he wanted the credit, but because he believed in doing that which was right; and if it was a good piece of legislation, he felt that it did not matter who wrote the bill. What was important was the result. Paul Coverdell set an example for all of us in elective office to follow. It is not important that we be concerned about the partisanship as it is that we be concerned about the policy. Yes, all the world is a stage and all the men and women merely players. Each has his entrance and his exit. One man in his time may play many parts. And so to Nancy and to the Coverdell family, our prayers go out to you; and we will wrap our arms around you, and we urge the Almighty to grant you the peace of spirit that only he can grant at a time like this. Paul was our friend, Paul was a statesman, and we will miss him very deeply.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, I had an opportunity to participate in a day of celebration and remembrance of the great contribution to agriculture and the economy in general made by the late John Thomas Thornton, Jr., of the community of Parrott, Georgia. If you are not familiar with the name, you are not alone. Even in the area of southwest Georgia where he lived and farmed most of his life, many people are not fully aware of his contribution, which impacts our lives even today. J.T. Thornton invented the peanut shaker, a harvesting device that came into common use in the 1940's. His invention revolutionized the peanut industry. By making the harvesting process faster and more efficient, the peanut shaker contributed greatly to the economic growth of our area of Georgia and, in fact, to the country at large. Mr. Thornton spent some 40 years developing and perfecting his invention. It was a magnificent achievement. The history of this achievement was beautifully presented in an essay written by a student from Parrott, Bonnie West, who won high honors when she entered the paper in the National History Day competition. Her accomplishment helped revive community interest in Mr. Thornton's invention, which he called the ``Victory Peanut Harvester.'' The people of Parrott, including members of the Thornton family, are establishing a museum on the invention of the peanut shaker, and sponsored the day of celebration that included a parade and a number of other events. It was an exciting and enjoyable day, and it helped bring wider recognition of what this native southwest Georgian achieved. Although farmers did not have any more spare time back then than they do today, J.T. Thornton somehow found the time to apply his practical knowledge of farming, and his extraordinary grasp of engineering and mechanics, to overcome all of the difficulties he must have encountered until he produced something that raised the quality of life for countless Americans. This is a story we are proud of in southwest Georgia, and that can inspire other Americans, especially our young people. Mr. Speaker, it is, therefore, a story I want to share with our colleagues in Congress.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, these two projects, as the gentleman is correct in saying, are included in the report language of the Senate Committee on Appropriations Report, report 106-288 at page 34. We certainly appreciate the gentleman's pledge of cooperation, and we would appreciate that very much; and we think it will be in the best interests of not just Georgia peanut farmers but the southeastern farmers and peanut farmers all across the country and agriculture as a whole. So I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. BISHOP. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time for the purposes of a colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) regarding an amendment. Before I address that, let me commend the gentlewoman from California for her effort on behalf of black farmers. I think that the colloquy that was held between the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), along with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the subcommittee chair, is very appropriate, it is on target, and it is something we need to move forward on with dispatch. With that said, I would like to engage the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) in a colloquy regarding the Committee on Appropriation's bill. On March 21 of this year, I requested of the Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Agriculture that two important projects be included in the agriculture appropriations bill for the year 2001. The requests under the USDA Agricultural Research Service included an ARS project to develop, evaluate, and transfer technology to improve the efficiency and quality of peanuts in Dawson, Georgia; and an ARS project on peanut quality research to develop technology and methodology for peanut quality management during production and postharvest processing, which is also in Dawson, Georgia. The request was that the two projects be funded at the fiscal year 2000 levels, including reinstatement of funding for the 15 percent rescission. The total appropriation agreed to in subcommittee for the two projects and the rescission was $1.15 million. During the markup of the full Committee on Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for 2001, it is my understanding that the gentleman offered an amendment which would strike the provision of $1.15 million for the two projects that I just referred to, and the rescission, and would insert in lieu of that, ARS funds totaling $1.15 million for several other projects, including $250,000 for category 1 nematology research, $350,000 for an agricultural water use management project, $300,000 for an increase in funds provided for the chicken genome mapping project, and $250,000 to increase funds provided for research on the Avian Leukosis-J virus and the Avian disease and oncology lab. Could the gentleman clarify for me the circumstances under which the two Dawson peanut projects were dropped, I assume inadvertently, pursuant to our conversations from the final committee report; and, if the gentleman would engage in some discussion with me with regard to the added four additional projects, which are very worthy projects and which I support and I join with the gentleman in requesting that they be funded. But because I support funding for the two projects that were eliminated as well as the projects that were substituted in lieu thereof, I would like to ask the gentleman to work with us, since they are all important to Georgia producers; they are important to the Southeast in agriculture and to agriculture across the country, and particularly the quality research at the peanut lab in Dawson. Would the gentleman be willing to work with us in conference to make sure that we are able to not only restore the two projects that were funded, but to ask the conference committee if they would also continue the four projects that the gentleman inserted in there, which we think are worthy and which were also proposed by us?

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to reluctantly support H.R. 4461, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2001. I wish to commend Chairman Young, Ranking Member Obey, Subcommittee Chairman Skeen and Subcommittee Ranking Member Kaptur for their hard work during this stressful time for American agriculture and our hard-working farmers. I support this legislation with the understanding that while this bill falls short in many areas, Congress needs to move now to stem the flood of debt, drought and despair in rural America. Indeed, this bill has some acceptable provisions. To address the credit gap that farmers face, this bill appropriates the Administration's request of $130 million to support $4.6 billion in loans to farmers and ranchers through the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund. There is increased funding for Farm Operating Loans and Farm Ownership Loans. In addition, there is $150 million for emergency disaster loans and $100 million for boll weevil eradication loans. As an increasing number of farmers sell their commodities at prices below their cost of production, the availability of this credit could be the difference in keeping many of the farmers in my District on the land. This bill appropriates adequate stop-gap funding for Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses which will allow farmers to continue to get the services they need at their local FSA offices. This Agriculture Appropriations bill increases funding for the Agricultural Research Service by $20 million over last year. This will allow for improved research for many producers. The bill appropriates $946 million for Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service to advance research, extension and education in the food and agricultural sciences. Soil and water conservation spending is increased by $16 million over last year's level. Rural Housing programs will increase by $89 million. Many of these programs deserve more, but producers and other recipients need these programs now. I will continue to fight for agriculture's fair share. Mr. Chairman, there are great deficiencies in this bill. The bill does not contain funding for important peanut research projects at the Dawson, Georgia ARS facility. A project to Develop, Evaluate and Transfer Technology to Improve the Efficiency and Quality in Peanuts and a project to Develop Technology/Methodology for Peanut Quality Management During Production and Post Harvest Processing are left unfunded in this bill. I will do everything I can to see that these important projects are funded in the final Conference Report. The bill provides $35.2 billion for domestic nutrition programs-- including food stamps, the school lunch and breakfast programs, and the Special Supplemental Food Program for Woman, Infants, and Children. This is an increase of $186 million over last year's level, but $1 billion less than the Administration requested. During this time of plenty in much of America we can do better. I am going to vote for this bill even though it fails to address fundamental problems in providing the economic safety net farmers need to keep growing the highest quality, safest and cheapest food in the world. Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for this bill because it keeps the American food ship afloat. But it remains for this House of Representatives to complete its work to knit a safety net for America's farmers who are drowning in debt, disaster and depressed prices. This vote is just the first step.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, while I believe this bill is deficient for a number of reasons, I want to specifically focus on what I consider to be a woefully inadequate level of funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. At a time when the country is gaining the upper hand in our long- fought war against crime, the bill we are considering slashes the Administration's request for COPS funding by more than half, eliminating all funding for community prosecutors, reducing funding to help provide police with updated technology, and failing to provide any increase for community-based crime prevent programs. This is hardly a step forward. In fact, it is a step backward. The fact is, the COPS program works. I have seen the impact it has had in the area of middle and southwest Georgia that I have the privilege of representing, where COPS grants have provided communities $12.5 million to help employ 258 additional police officers. Predictably, the result of putting more police on the streets has been more arrests and less crime. If you ask why the country's crime rate has dramatically declined over the past few years, just ask our police officers and prosecutors and others on the front lines of the war against crime. They will tell you that a number of factors have contributed. But they will also tell you that the ``COPS'' program has been one of the biggest factors of all. So far, ``COPS'' grants have put 60,000 more police officers on community streets, and there is enough funding in the pipeline to reach 100,000 over the next couple of years. And if adequate funding is provided, we can still reach out goal of adding 150,000 officers by 2005. While the crime rate is dropping, we should be aware of the fact that our criminal justice system has many unmet needs. At the same time, there are signs that the crime rate may be bottoming out, particularly among young people. It is a mistake to think we have already won the war against crime. If the country lets its guard down, there is every reason to believe the crime rate could begin to rise again. Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to reject a level of COPS funding that fails to meet the needs of the law enforcement community and, instead, to enact a level that will enable our police agencies and court system to continue gaining ground against the forces of crime, which cause so much human suffering and economic damage in Georgia and throughout the country at-large.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I ask the House to support my colleagues from Georgia and vote in favor of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the EPA's new standards could potentially triple the number of counties nationwide in violation of the Clean Air Act. Chattahoochee County, in my congressional district, could possibly be one of those counties impacted by the new national ambient air quality standards. Mr. Chairman, Chattahoochee County is not an industrial county. It is a small poor rural county that is trying to build its economic base. EPA's new standards, no matter how well intentioned, could seriously damage this effort. Last year, the United States Court of Appeals ruled that EPA's standards are legally unenforceable. The Supreme Court announced that they would consider EPA's appeal and all the arguments involved. Due to this legal uncertainty, I truly believe that the EPA should delay further implementation of the standards in order to allow time for the Supreme Court to rule on the pending appeal. Mr. Chairman, if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeals and does rule that the new standards are unconstitutional, our States and our local communities will have spent tax dollars to comply with illegal requirements and will have nothing to show for their investment in a federally mandated process. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4576, the Defense Appropriations for FY 2001. I wish to commend Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha for crafting a bill which provides the necessary tools for military readiness and a better quality of life for our men and women in the armed services. I believe, as the vast majority of Americans do, in a strong national defense. We live in an uncertain time and an unstable world. While the Soviet Union is no longer considered an enemy and no other nation has assumed the ``evil empire'' status, there are nations arming themselves and becoming real threats to our national security. The measure before us today will allow this nation to have the most technologically advanced armed services in the world. The funding levels contained in this bill will provide our troops with the superior weapons they need to prosecute and deter war as effectively as possible. However, there is a human face to this equation and that is the focus of my remarks today. Georgia's Second Congressional District is home to three military installations: Fort Benning, home of the 75th Ranger Regiment; Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, home of the 347th Fighter Wing; and, the Marine Corps Logistics Base and Materiel Command in Albany. I have seen, first hand, the excellent work that our fighting men and women do, often under very difficult circumstances. Our responsibility is to make their jobs easier. We cannot expect to attract qualified recruits if poor pay and benefits, inadequate housing and increased ops tempo are the norm. I support this bill because it addresses both readiness and raises the quality of life for our armed forces. This measure provides a 3.7-percent increase for military personnel in FY2001. It appropriates $433 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program to assist in the denuclearization and demilitarization of the states of the Former Soviet Union. This funding goes a long way in helping to disarm those would be rogue states that are currently buying nuclear material on the black market. The bill also funds drug interdiction activities of the U.S. military at $812 million. And, in an attempt to be proactive to the evolving threat to computer security, the measure appropriates and extra $150 million for research an development in support of the Defense Department's information systems security program. Mr. Chairman, it is for these and many other reasons that I gladly support H.R. 4576 today and encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the chairman, the ranking member, the conference committee, I cannot express enough gratitude to them for finally completing the work in bringing this very, very important piece of legislation to the floor for the consideration of the full House. We need a risk protection tool to repair the safety net that our farmers have had torn away from them. We have been working on this bill for some time, and I am just delighted that finally we are able to get to the point where we can go home and tell our farmers that we have accomplished our work. This will repair that safety net. It will reward good farming experience, much as we reward good drivers for driving safely. It is more affordable. There will be more coverage, and it will pay for the cost of production losses when there is a disaster. The most important thing that I like, and what our farmers in Georgia like, is the APH, the adjusted production history, which is a part of this bill; and we are very, very, very pleased with that. We are pleased with the short-term relief that is being given in the emergency payments for the oil seed producers, the cotton seed producers, and for the disaster assistance for our peanut farmers. I think we have done a very good job here, and I want to commend, again, the chairman, the ranking member, and the conference committee for a job well done; and I am so glad that we are finally able to get it accomplished.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, after considering the arguments for and against PNTR, I have concluded that rejecting it would be a serious mistake and passing it would benefit Georgia's and our area's economy. China will soon enter the World Trade Organization (WTO), which oversees the rules of international commerce. The United States is already a member. WTO rules say that members must grant one another ``unconditional'' low-tariff access to their markets. The current process of annual votes by Congress on China trade amounts to a ``condition.'' Hence, the U.S. would be out of compliance with WTO rules if PNTR was not passed. To gain entry into the WTO, China has agreed to open markets that have long been closed, such as agriculture, services, technology, telecommunications, and manufactured goods, and will drop or greatly reduce tariffs. The U.S. has already opened our markets. U.S. exports to China have tripled over the past decade. But China's exports to the U.S. are seven times greater. That deficit should drop with an expansion of U.S. goods and services under PNTR and WTO. Unfortunately, China will only give these market-opening benefits to countries that give Chinese products ``unconditional'' access. So, if we fail to give China PNTR, they will shut U.S. companies out of huge business opportunities in a fast-growing economy of 1.2 billion people. That would impact jobs in our area greatly, according to Governor Roy Barnes, Agriculture Commissioner Tommy Irvin, the 342,000-members of the Georgia Farm Bureau, Proctor and Gamble, Merck Pharmaceutical, Miller Brewing, Phillip Morris, Kraft Foods, Georgia Pacific, Weyerhaeuer, Ayres Aircraft, Carter Manufacturing, Griffin Chemical, Coca-Cola, Bell South, Georgia Power, AT&T, Cargill, Tyson Foods, Gold Kist, American Cotton Shippers, Synovus Financial, AFLAC, UPS, Tobacco Association of the United States, Brown and Williamson, and countless others. Too many people associated with these area businesses would lose. We just can't afford NOT to grant PNTR. Some, including myself, have expressed deeply-felt and well-reasoned concerns about PNTR. Some, including veterans groups, have questioned whether it might compromise our national security. Some farmers and business entrepreneurs feel China's proclivity for cheating might put the U.S. at an export disadvantage. Others express concern about rewarding a country like China with a horrible record of political suppression, religious persecution, and unfair and inhumane labor practices. I share all of these concerns. Upon close analysis, however, I believe that failure to pass PNTR would have even worse consequences. Our national security would be endangered because rejection of PNTR would send a clear message that we view China as an adversary. The Chinese are modernizing a military that has more manpower than any country on earth, and only because of our current engagement policy have they agreed to stop transferring anti- ship cruise missiles to Iran and other rogue nations for cash. If they view us as an adversary, rather than a trading partner, they will continue to transfer weapons of mass destruction and endanger our national security. Moreover, if we are seen as an adversary to China, our bilateral relations with other Asian countries such as Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, and even Japan would be affected. These countries would have to align themselves with China, their strong neighbor, or the U.S. on the other side of the world. Taiwan President- elect Chen shui-Bian supports PNTR because he says it would promote greater cooperation between mainland China and the free world as well as contribute to peace and stability. As for human rights, labor and environmental issues, it is clear the U.S. cannot exert influence if it is disengaged. Although the effectiveness of the oversight measures in the PNTR package is disputed, the measures do, in fact, make workable mechanisms available to the U.S. to take retaliatory action against any breakdown in our expectations of China. With the passage of PNTR, China will have the opportunity to prove to the world its ability to greatly improve its record. In turn, the U.S. and other WTO nations, will have the opportunity to hold China more accountable. My vote for PNTR is a vote to open markets in China's in order to promote jobs in Georgia, and for a safer world.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), for his accommodation. Let me join my colleagues in wishing Mr. Newcomb well in his future endeavors. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), have achieved an exceptional level of cooperation in the work of the committee. The bill provides the resources to ensure that the President, the National Security Council, cabinet secretaries and our military forces get the intelligence they need to protect our national security. This bill seeks to redress some of the important problems revealed by the campaign in Kosovo, especially in the area of airborne reconnaissance. These actions include investments beyond those in the President's budget request for the Department of Defense tactical intelligence programs. In all cases, these recommendations were coordinated with the Committee on Armed Services. Our bill in this area reflects the views of the Committee on Armed Services and vice versa. The bill also recommends actions in a number of critical areas in the so-called national intelligence budget. One of these areas is the exploitation of imagery taken from satellites and aircraft, an issue of great concern to the committee for several years. It is clear to all that our ability to exploit is going to fall far behind our capacity to collect, and this is unacceptable. The administration has taken a very positive first step by asking and planning for more funds in this and subsequent budgets, but the amounts remain well short of requirements. The committee added substantial funds to enable the National Imagery and Mapping Agency to begin a major upgrade of its information management capabilities, the necessity for which was specifically emphasized in the Department of Defense Kosovo lessons learned study. Another important problem area concerns the National Security Agency. The telecommunications and information technology industry appears as a whirlwind with NSA, at the moment, trailing in its wake. NSA's new director, General Hayden, is a committed reformer who deserves our support. He has asked the committee to help him by closing down some of the ongoing activities and shifting resources to solving the future problems. The committee has tried to do that in a responsible manner. This bill would give NSA substantially larger resources for modernization. At the same time, the bill would require NSA to expend more time and energy to ensure that its plans are sound. Similarly, we think it is prudent to ensure that the executive branch apply systematic oversight of NSA's complex and expensive modernization program. I am particularly concerned about the impact of launch failures on our intelligence activities. The committee has examined current arrangements by which the Air Force and the NRO procure launch vehicles and manage launch vehicle contracts. The committee proposed that the NRO, in the future, manage its own procurements. It is my hope that this measure will improve accountability and launch reliability, while preserving the very positive partnership between the NRO and the Air Force. Mr. Chairman, this bill would accomplish much and I certainly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, for many years we have been engaged in a debate over whether or not the School of the Americas has faithfully carried out its mission of teaching human rights and principles of democracy to visiting students from Latin America in addition to their military training. Opponents have accused the school of all kinds of misdeeds, and those of us supporting the school and its mission have presented documented evidence which we believe thoroughly refutes these allegations. Nevertheless, the same old charges and countercharges are revived year after year, time and again. I am not interested in rehashing the same old debate. What I am interested in is focusing on the substantive changes that are proposed today, changes that opponents have called for and which the supporters of the school also believe can be helpful. Opponents wanted to change the name, claiming the existing one has been tainted. The plan before us would do that. Opponents want stronger oversight, and the plan proposed shifts the oversight responsibility to the Cabinet level by placing it in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, rather than the Secretary of the Army, and by establishing the Independent Board of Visitors, which includes prominent human rights activists as part of this law. Opponents wanted more emphasis on human rights, and the plan makes instruction in human rights and democratic principles mandatory by law for every student. Anyone who supports the long-standing U.S. policy of both Democratic and Republican administrations, the policy of helping Latin American democracies develop professional military forces that are committed to serving under civilian authority, should be for these changes. The leaders of the School of the Americas Watch oppose this policy, so it is not surprising that this movement does not support the proposed reorganization of the school. The opponents of the School of the Americas have publicly stated that they want weak military forces in Latin America, even for democracies. The real issue we are debating today is whether the U.S. should promote weaker military forces for emerging democracies which the Moakley Amendment does, or whether we should help these democracies become more secure--and whether we should sustain an instrument like the school at Fort Benning to actively carry out this policy. A vote for this program is a vote for sound policy--and a vote for truth.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4425, the Military Construction Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. I wish to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the Committee on Appropriations for crafting a bill which provides the necessary funding to improve the quality of life of our men and women in our armed forces. I believe that this measure goes a long way in addressing the backlog in readiness, revitalization and quality of life projects. The measure before us today will fund the planning and construction of several barracks, family housing and operational facilities. The Second Congressional District of Georgia is home to three military installations, Fort Benning, home of the 75th Ranger Regiment and this year's winner of the Army Chief-of-Staff's Army Communities of Excellence Awards; Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, home of the 347th Fighter Wing, and the Marine Corps Logistics Center and Materiel Command Base in my hometown of Albany, Georgia. I have seen firsthand the excellent work that our fighting men and women do, often under very, very difficult circumstances. Our responsibility is to make their jobs easier. We cannot expect to attract qualified recruits and retain them if we provide inadequate facilities for them while they are in. This measure would provide Fort Benning with $24 million for Phase III of barracks construction and $15.8 million for fixed wing aircraft parking aprons. It provides $1.1 million for the renovation of the vehicle storage facility at the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, and it provides $2.5 million for a badly needed water treatment plant at Moody Air Force Base. The portions of the bill that I just spoke of place a human face on this debate for my constituents, Mr. Chairman. We know that we have the most technologically advanced military in the world. Therefore, we must continue to improve the quality of life for the men and women who are the heart and soul of that military. This bill does a very good job of doing just that, and, therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 127, I was unavoidably detained and unable to be present for the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), my good friend and a friend of C.B. King. I found it so very interesting that the gentleman and I, both natives of Alabama now residents of Georgia and Georgia citizens, have now begun to live out the legacy of C.B. King. Interestingly enough, for C.B. fighting for voting rights, for the end of segregation in voter registration, the end of segregation in the voting booths in Georgia, South Georgia in particular, that was not enough for him. He thought that the transformation could not just stop at the courthouse doors. So as the gentleman pointed out, he demonstrated for us that it was possible for us to run for office. He ran for President in 1960 and he ran for governor in 1970, and in 1964 he ran for Congress in the Second Congressional District, the seat that I now hold. It is also interesting that at the same time C.B. King was contesting the Georgia primary in 1970, one of his opponents was Jimmy Carter, who was then running for governor. C.B. did not win the primary. Jimmy Carter ultimately did and became governor, but there were hundreds of thousands of people all across the State who gained a new respect for C.B. King and for the fact that there was an articulate orator, eloquent, debonair who could use polysyllabic words in a way that none had been heard on the campaign stumps in Georgia. When he did his televised debate, we all were proud knowing that perhaps he would not win but he represented us well. So he planted the seed for us that, yes, one day it is possible that we might not only run but we might win. For that, we all owe C.B. King a debt of gratitude. I was contacted by a constituent after the naming of the courthouse where C.B. King was introduced and it appeared in the press. I received afternoon e-mail from a constituent who was very irate, who just did not think that it was appropriate for that courthouse to be named after C.B. King. I was struck, but then I understood that, perhaps, there are so many in our beloved State of Georgia, so many across the Nation who really do not fully understand the tremendous import of the life and career that this man had in transforming our native Georgia into the place that it is now, not perhaps as perfect as we want it to be, but certainly so much better than it used to be, better because of the life of C.B. King. I responded to this constituent by reminding him that it was C.B. King's accomplishments, peacefully utilizing the Constitution and the laws of the United States to assure equal opportunity under the law for all Georgians regardless of race. I reminded this constituent that it should never have been an issue, that given the course the history of slavery and Jim Crow, segregation, discrimination, the Civil Rights Movement, and eventually the successes and the acknowledgment by the courts that all Americans of all races must be afforded equal rights under the law, that C.B. King had, indeed, made a positive difference. I raised the question, what would southwest Georgia be like had C.B. King not challenged the status quo in Federal court and forced desegregation of the public schools and many of our south Georgia school systems. Had he not gone into that Federal courthouse in Albany, Georgia, would we ever have seen the talent of a Herschel Walker, the talent of a Charlie Ward, or the talent of a Judge Herbert Phipps who now sits on the Georgia Court of Appeals, or a Robert Benham who is chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. Had C.B. King not gone into Albany's Federal court to force the City of Albany to comply with laws prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race, creed, color, religion, or sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Albany and many south Georgia municipalities would have been deprived of the talents of countless African American public sector employees, such as the current city manager in Albany or the police chief or the fire chiefs, and many, many, many others who have served in various capacities in the public sector. This was a milestone in the history of the south. It was a milestone in south Georgia. It was the life and the efforts of C.B. King that really made it possible. What kind of justice system would we have in southwest Georgia if C.B. King had not gone into our Federal courthouse to end the age-old practice of excluding blacks and women from serving on juries in State and Federal cases? What if C.B. King had not been there to have our Federal courts protect the rights of citizens of all colors to peaceably assemble and petition their government, to be free of discrimination and voter registration in the voting booth and in running for office? Indeed, I, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and many of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus would not be here serving in this body, and many thousands of others would not be serving in municipalities, on school board, in the State legislatures all across the south had it not been for the work of C.B. King. I have been joined by the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), another of my colleagues who was a part of the movement, who even participated in the Albany Movement, who knew C.B. King, and who has gone on to, in the legacy of C.B. King, distinguish himself. He is the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. He perhaps, as well as any, knows, feels, experienced, and has lived the legacy of C.B. King. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), my friend and colleague.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her comments. As we draw this special order to a close, this hour to a close, I am just personally grateful that I had the opportunity to know C.B. King. He made a tremendous impact on my life, as did Howard Moore, Jr. and Donald Hollowell. I remember attending law school and wondering if the courses I was taking in law school were relevant to the Movement, and contemplating leaving law school to engage in some more direct action and getting the advice and counsel that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Watt) so aptly described, that when people in the Movement are locked up, somebody has got to be there legally to get them out. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to have a useful skill. I followed in their footsteps, went to New York with the Legal Defense Fund, went back to Georgia to do as my grandmother said, son, try to brighten the corner where you are, improve the community where you live. The South is my home. It is my native land. It is where I belong and where I will do all within my power to make better following the role models of these great giants and, in particular, C.B. King. C.B. King really is good timber. Just like the tree that never had to fight for sun and sky and air and light, that stood out in the open plain and always got its share of rain, but never became a forest king, but lived and died a scrubby thing. A man who never had to toil by hand or mind in life's turmoil, who never had to earn his share of sun and sky and light and air, never became a manly man, but lived and died as he began. Good timber doesn't grow in ease, the stronger winds, the tougher trees, the farther sky, the greatest length, the rougher storm, the greater strength. By wind or rain, by sun or snow, in trees or man, good timbers grow. C.B. King was good timber. We are all better because he lived and passed this way. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our two senators, Senator Coverdell and Senator Cleland, for their commitment and their vision in introducing the legislation on the Senate side, which ultimately passed this House, which was a companion legislation to the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and myself here on the House floor to name the United States Courthouse on Broad Avenue in Albany, Georgia the C.B. King United States Courthouse; what a fitting tribute.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I am honored and humbled to have the opportunity today to take this time with some of my colleagues to pay tribute to the life of a good and a great Georgian, the late Chevene Bowers King. On last Monday, April 3, this House passed a measure, Senate bill 1567, which designated the United States courthouse located at 223 Broad Avenue in Albany, Georgia, as the C.B. King United States Courthouse. Oh, what a wonderful tribute, what a tribute to a life that has been given in unselfish service for so many people. Someone wrote the poem: Good Timber ``A tree that never had to fight For sun and sky and air and light, That stood out in the open plain And always got its share of rain, Never became a forest king, But lived and died a scrubby thing. A man who never had to toil By hand or mind in life's turmoil, Who never had to earn his share Of sun and sky and light and air, Never became a manly man, But lived and died as he began. Good timber doesn't grow in ease; The stronger winds, the tougher trees. The farther sky, the greater length, The rougher storm, the greater strength. By wind or rain, by sun or snow, In trees or man good timbers grow.'' Chevene Bowers King was a man who was great timber, he was good timber, and the legacy that he left in his beloved Southland is one that will be enjoyed and revered and remembered for many, many years to come. When we talked about introducing the bill to name the courthouse after C.B. King, it was interesting that there were four chief cosponsors, two of them United States Senators from the State of Georgia, Senator Paul Coverdell, Senator Max Cleland, and two of them House members from the State of Georgia, the honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), and myself, Sanford Bishop. We introduced bills in both houses to designate the courthouse on Broad Avenue in Albany, Georgia, the C.B. King United States Courthouse. How ironic it is that two white U.S. Congressmen, perhaps the descendents of slave owners, and two African-American Congressmen, perhaps the descendents of slaves, were able to come together with a common history in our beloved South to give tribute to a man who brought the races together and who helped to break down the walls of racial discrimination. Just as Robert Benham, Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, wrote a letter in support of legislation to name the courthouse, he described C.B. King as ``A man who proved to be all things to all people. His vision, innovation, brilliant legal reasoning skills, compassion, and courage led to reforms that impacted not only the good people of the State of Georgia, but the entire Nation.'' He felt that it was fitting that a Federal courthouse is named in his honor. ``His leadership and legal mastery in several landmark cases established a groundwork for school desegregation, voting rights, and jury selection reform. He worked tirelessly to promote equal access to employment, health care, public facilities, and services on a national level.'' There is no finer example of professionalism, he said, than C.B. King, extremely competent, a public servant, community activist, led the fight for the rights of all people; an organizer, a participant, an attorney for the Albany Movement. The Albany Movement was a series of demonstrations and sit-ins held during the early 1960s designed to help end discrimination and segregation in South Georgia and throughout the South. Dr. Martin Luther King viewed the Albany Movement as a pivotal campaign in the civil rights movement. C.B. King was Dr. Martin Luther King's lawyer, his trusted friend, his confidant. C.B. represented many noted leaders who were forerunners in the fight for equality; and as a result, he motivated countless minorities and women to become part of the noble legal profession. His shining example has inspired lawyers and judges everywhere. So I am just honored and humbled that I am able to come today to stand here in these hallowed chambers to pay tribute to a man who not only touched my life but touched the lives of so many others across Georgia and across this Nation. I have been joined by one of my colleagues who knew C.B. as I did, the honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). In a moment I will yield to him after I make a few more brief comments about C.B. Chevene Bowers King was born October 12, 1923, in Albany, Georgia, the third of eight children of Clinton King, owner of an apparel shop and supermarket, and Mrs. Margaret Slater King. He attended Mercer Street Elementary School and Madison Street High School in Albany, Georgia, and after graduation he attended Tuskegee University and then he enlisted in the United States Navy. After his 3 years of service in the Navy, he enrolled at Fisk University where he earned his bachelor's degree in political science. Pursuing his education further, he attended Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland, Ohio. He attended Case Western Reserve because for a young black college graduate in the South, there were no law schools for him to attend. So he had to go North. He went to Case Western. He graduated from law school, but unlike so many who fled the South, C.B. was committed to returning to his homeland to make a difference, to try to break down the walls of discrimination and the racism that inhibited the growth and development of millions and millions and millions of young people. So he returned to Albany, Georgia, and he started up the practice of law. He married Carol Roumain and he had a family; four sons, Chevene, Jr., Kenyan, Leland, Clennon, and a daughter, Peggy. C.B. practiced law for many years, and he truly made a difference. The kinds of cases that C.B. handled are the kinds of cases that inspired us and that ultimately transformed the South from a land that was dreaded to a land of opportunity and a land which now leads the Sunbelt in these United States. C.B. is remembered, perhaps, most for his legal activism in the South. He became the leading civil rights attorney in southwest Georgia, being only one of three African American lawyers in the entire State of Georgia. He worked closely with the local chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and was a cooperating attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. His work spanned the entire range of civil rights litigation. He handled school desegregation cases. He was a lead attorney in the school desegregation cases in Dougherty County, in Georgia, in Muscogee County in Georgia, in Colquitt County in Georgia. He was one of the earlier manifestations of the need for political involvement by African Americans, and he led the fight to ensure the right to peaceably assemble and to demonstrate. He led the fight to allow African American voters and candidates for office to not be subjected to unconstitutional segregation and discrimination, whether it be on the registration being denied the opportunity to register to vote or being forced to vote in separate voting booths. C.B. led the fight for voting rights and political rights. Not only did he lead the fight in terms of voting, in terms of desegregation, but he also, in the halls of justice, saw injustice when women and African Americans were denied the right to serve on juries. So he went into the Federal courthouse in Albany, Georgia, and attacked these matters. As a result of several of these jury discrimination cases, in Mitchell County, Quitman County, Dougherty County, Terrell County, Baker County and indeed in the Federal court system there in the Middle District of Georgia, he led and successfully opened the opportunity for blacks and for women to serve on juries. Of course, it is interesting that he also expanded his civil rights struggle to block discrimination in employment, particularly public employment. The city of Albany, he handled that case. He was known as a legal scholar. He was an excellent orator. He had a royal presence, and he brought an intensity to the civil rights movement. I am just honored and delighted that this House and this Nation has finally recognized the legacy and the contribution of this great Georgian. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a son of the South, a product of the civil rights movement, who knew C.B. King as I did on a personal basis and who has personal experiences and a personal legacy that he can relate regarding C.B. King. At this time I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am delighted to yield the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). The gentleman from North Carolina, as I was in my life before coming to Congress, was a practicing attorney. In fact, we both were civil rights attorneys. We both shared an experience as Earl Warren Fellows of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. In that capacity, we attended biyearly conferences where we were studying the recent developments in civil rights law. The gentleman from North Carolina, of course, was with one of the most, if not the most, prominent civil rights law firm in Charlotte, North Carolina, Chambers, Stein, Ferguson and Lanning. And I, of course, was in Georgia, after leaving New York, practicing there in Columbus, Georgia. I met the gentleman during those years, 1971-1972. All up through the next 10 years we would run into each other at least twice a year as we labored in the vineyards of civil rights litigation across the south, and as we came to Airlie House in Warrenton, Virginia to meet with stalwarts like C.B. King and Julius Chambers. The gentleman from North Carolina knew C.B. as I knew C.B., and I am delighted to yield to him.