Sanford Bishop

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog substitute I support today is a triumph of common sense over ideology. It reduces the budget debt more than any other plan, and therefore does more to shore up social security and Medicare. By design, it protects the Nation's priority needs, which common sense dictates that we cannot abandon. For farmers, we provide $3 billion more for crop insurance without additional reductions in county offices and employees. For the military, we provide $13 billion more to ensure that morale and readiness problems are addressed. For veterans, we provide $1.9 billion more so this Nation will not renege on its promise to those who sacrificed to keep our country great. For our children, we provide $10 billion more for critical education programs like school construction and repair, Internet access, and smaller class size. For health care in rural areas, we provide more. Finally, the Blue Dog budget cuts taxes by $41.7 billion over the next 10 years, and provides for tax relief to increase as the surplus grows. Vote for the budget that will do more for America. Vote for the Blue Dog budget.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for handling this special order and for her kindness and graciousness in yielding the time to me to speak at this very, very important time. Madam Speaker, like many of our colleagues, I have been making talks about black history this month at schools, churches and civic organizations throughout my area of middle and south Georgia. It is an honor to participate. I believe that the goals Dr. Carter J. Woodson had in mind when he established this observance 73 years ago are indeed being fulfilled. As a historian, he wanted to make American history as accurate and as complete as possible. As an African American who worked his way up from poverty to become a renowned teacher, a writer and a scholar, he wanted to give black people, particularly young people, a better sense of their heritage and a more hopeful vision of their future and the country's future. Today, Americans everywhere recognize the contributions that African Americans have made in science, exploration, business, education, religion, the arts, in politics and government, in entertainment and supports and the military and citizenship and in every field of endeavor that has made our country a beacon of freedom and opportunity throughout the world. One example from my area of southwest Georgia, Thomasville, is Lieutenant Henry Flipper. Henry Flipper was born a slave, became the first African American to graduate from West Point. After serving with distinction as an officer in the legendary Buffalo Soldiers on the western frontier, he was falsely charged with the disappearance of commissary funds. He was found innocent of these charges but was nevertheless dismissed from the Army on a wrongful charge of conduct unbecoming an officer. Others might have been defeated by this setback but Henry Flipper never lost his sense of duty and responsibility and he rose to great heights in the years that followed. As a civilian, he was a pioneer in the oil industry, helped develop the railroad in the west and served as an inventor, surveyor, engineer, author and newspaper editor. He rose to positions of extraordinary influence in government, serving as an assistant to the Secretary of the Interior, a special agent to the U.S. Justice Department and as an advisor to Congress. Just a few days ago, he was formally pardoned of all charges by President Clinton at a White House ceremony with many of his descendants in attendance. Today his statue can be found on the campus of West Point. A post office is named in his honor in the community where he was born in my district. Efforts are being made to issue a stamp with his portrait. He was truly a hero. It was not his extraordinary accomplishments that made him such an inspiring figure. What made him special were the personal values and strengths that enabled him to overcome adversity time and time again and continue to live a highly productive life; qualities such as his remarkable courage and sense of discipline, personal dignity, duty, his fighting spirit and his unwavering faith in his country through all of the difficulties and injustices that he had to endure. During his years at the military academy, Flipper experienced mistreatment and ostracism but he persevered and graduated as one of the academy's better students. In civilian life, he encountered a series of new challenges with the same skills and determination and the duty that characterized his career at West Point and in the military making historic contributions to our country's westward expansion. In spite of his bitter experiences in the military, when Henry Flipper died in Atlanta in 1940 his death certificate listed the one occupation that he wished recorded: Retired Army officer. America has produced many heroes. They come from all races, creeds and colors. We find examples of great necessary among all people in the patchwork of cultures that has become the strongest, freest and most productive nation the world has ever known. Black history month gives us an opportunity to learn from their lives.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I believe the President's conduct was wrong, indefensible, and disgraceful, and he should be punished. But after careful review of the four articles of the impeachment and supporting materials and after prayerful deliberation, I must vote against impeachment. I do support strong censure, which makes clear that the President is not above the law, and remains subject to any penalties of law substantiated by the facts. While I cannot defend the President's conduct, it is my solemn duty to defend the integrity of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers made it clear in their deliberations that only the most serious offenses against the Republic itself would justify removal from office. Whether or not the facts alleged in support of the articles are true is questionable. None of the testimony given in support of the articles has been subjected to cross-examination. Even if we assume that the allegations are true, it is my judgment that they do not rise to the high constitutional requirements for impeachment. I urge this body to take a course of action that is justified by the facts, censure, not impeachment. Follow the will of the majority of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I believe the President's conduct was wrong, indefensible, and disgraceful, and he should be punished. However, after careful review of the four Articles of Impeachment and the supporting materials and following prayerful deliberations, I have concluded that my vote and the vote of the House should be against impeachment of President Clinton. I reached this conclusion for several reasons: (1) Impeachment sets in motion a process to remove the President from office which could necessarily reverse the result of our last Presidential election and cancel out the wishes of a majority of Americans who cast their votes in that election. The constitutional requirements for impeachment are ``. . . Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The founding fathers made it clear in their deliberations that only the most serious offenses against the Republic itself would justify removal of the President from office. Whether or not the facts alleged in support of the Articles of Impeachment are true is questionable. None of the testimony given in support of the Articles has been subjected to cross-examination. But even if we assume that the allegations are true, it is my sincere judgment that they do not rise to the high constitutional standards for impeachment and removal from the office of President. (2) There is unanimity in the Congress and throughout America that the President's conduct was wrong, possibly illegal, immoral and reprehensible. Moreover, it is clear that the people of this country feel the President should be held accountable for the violation of the trust he owes to the American people. However, it is also clear that they want punishment that will fit the offenses. They believe censure is the appropriate course of action. Constitutional scholars who testified before the Judiciary Committee agree four to one that censure is constitutional and appropriate. Those of us who believe in the Judeo-Christian principles of repentance and forgiveness but who also feel compelled to condemn the President's conduct should be allowed to express that as an alternative to impeachment through a vote on censure. Unfortunately, the partisan majority in the House will not allow a censure vote in spite of the strong preference of a majority of the American people. (3) The principles of the ``rule of law'' and accountability would not in any way be abrogated if the House failed to impeach, voted for censure or did neither. For the President is still subject to indictment, prosecution, trial, and conviction of any possible law violation. He could face imprisonment just as any other American could, if found guilty. The President is therefore still subject to and not above the long arm of the law. (4) Finally, I believe that a Senate trial of Impeachment with the attendance utilization of resources would hurt our District by diverting the focus of the 106th Congress from critical issues such as job creation and economic development, farm relief, tax relief, school modernization, Social Security and Medicare solvency, the Patient's Bill of Rights, domestic and international terrorism, defense, crime and drugs, and veteran's benefits. Additionally, an impeachment trial will punish the country by creating instability in our domestic economy, losses for retirees with lifetime incomes invested in the stock market, and job loss and further economic downturn at home. While I cannot defend the President's conduct, it is my solemn duty to defend the integrity of the Constitution. It is my considered judgment that the integrity of the Constitution requires more than the allegation contained in the Articles of Impeachment. I believe that censure would be a more appropriate course of action. Therefore, I must vote against impeachment.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me this time, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for this resolution. I believe it is important that we demonstrate America's resounding and unequivocal commitment to our Nation's armed forces. We must voice our support, not as Democrats, not as Republicans but as Americans. We know our troops will give us 100 percent and we can afford to give them no less. The President in consultation with America's top military leaders has given sound, rational support for his decision to launch new attacks on Iraq at this time. Members of the Moody Air Force Base in the Second Congressional District of Georgia will soon be called upon to support this endeavor. More than 200 Air Force personnel will be part of a combat search and rescue package that will be deployed within the next few days. This is a very difficult time to ask our service men and women to be separated from their families. That is another reason why it is so important that we have the morale of our troops uplifted by the solidarity to that mission. I would extend my prayers for all of the deployed men and women and their families for a safe and speedy return. God bless our troops. God bless their families. God bless America.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference agreement on H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. First, let me take this opportunity to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) for his efforts in producing a bipartisan bill that addresses the needs of the United States intelligence community. Additionally, praise must also be extended to the ranking Democratic member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for his work in helping to craft this important piece of legislation and for his service to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. There is perhaps no Member in this great institution who has dedicated more time and energy to understanding the technology supporting our intelligence community than the gentleman from Washington. Due to the service limitations placed on members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he will be leaving the committee in the next Congress. I will personally miss his leadership on technical and tactical issues that confront the committee, and the committee as a whole will miss his innovative ideas and his commitment to maintaining the best intelligence community in the world. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) will also be leaving the committee, and I want to take this opportunity to wish them well and to say that these two defenders of democracy, freedom and justice will also be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, I say, ``Thank you, Mr. Skaggs and Ms. Harman, for your friendship and for your commitment to the men and the women of the national security and intelligence communities.'' Also leaving the committee is Mr. Calvin Humphrey, as was mentioned by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), who was the first minority, African-American, in our nation's history to hold a professional staff position with the intelligence committee. He has provided professional support to the committee for the last 11 years. He served under six chairmen and has served in almost every official senior staff position with the committee. Mr. Speaker, he has certainly enhanced our national security, and the efficiency of our country's intelligence community has been enhanced by his service. We will certainly miss him very much. We congratulate him, however, as he assumes a senior level position with a Federal agency. I'm confident he will be successful and continue to contribute to the setterment of our nation. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us today authorizes resources to ensure that our intelligence capabilities are sufficient to meet the contingencies of the next millennium. With each passing day, our intelligence community is called upon to respond to more and more contingencies within a restrained budget. We all recall with horror the cowardly and ruthless attacks on our embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. A number of representatives of the intelligence community were on the ground in both countries in a short period of time collecting and analyzing information. The efforts of the intelligence community to date have been indispensable to the leads that have been developed and the arrests that have been made in these bombings. Additionally, it has been widely reported in a number of our Nation's periodicals that planned attacks on other embassies have been interrupted and avoided as a result of the dedication and hard work of intelligence community personnel. This conference report provides resources for our intelligence community's counterterrorism efforts. Additionally, funding is provided to collect, process, analyze, and disseminate critical intelligence that helps shield our sons and daughters serving in our Nation's armed forces against the deadly force of terrorism. In short, let me say that I am confident that this conference report will assist in maintaining the intelligence capabilities necessary to provide policymakers with the information they need to make key decisions affecting our national security. Mr. Speaker, just last week I met with individuals concerned with the fate of Americans still unaccounted for as a result of wars that our Nation has been involved in. Last January, I traveled to Southeast Asia to review our intelligence activities and operations in that region of the world. Specifically, I focused my attention on efforts aimed at achieving a full accounting of Americans still unaccounted for as a result of the Vietnam war. Again, I want to ensure our Nation's veterans and the families of those soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines still unaccounted for that this conference report contains the necessary resources to permit the intelligence community to continue its efforts to determine the fate of those who have yet to come home. Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides critical support to all facets of our intelligence community. Resources are authorized to sustain the intelligence community's efforts to assist in providing force protection intelligence to our troops and to assist in the collection and analysis of critical intelligence bearing on such challenging issues as counterterrorism, counternarcotics, and counterproliferation. I am proud to support this conference agreement and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in Georgia today (October 5) due to a failure of aircraft equipment. This caused me to miss Roll Numbers 480, 481 and 482. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on HR 4614, ``yes'' on HR 1154 and ``yes'' on HR 4655.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on H.R. 4101, the fiscal year 1999 agricultural appropriations bill, which includes disaster and market loss assistance to cover losses incurred by farmers this year. The total farmgate losses in Georgia have been estimated by the University of Georgia to be in excess of three-quarters of a billion dollars. In light of this, the $4.6 billion provided in the bill for all agricultural disasters throughout the United States might prove to be inadequate. Indeed, many of the details of this bill's implementation will be entrusted to the Department of Agriculture, so I do not know that any of us is confident that every producer in our districts who has suffered a loss through acts of God or record low prices will be indemnified. However, this is a bird in the hand and I must support the bird that we have in hand. In addition, I am pleased to say that the conferees have seen fit to respond to the Department of Agriculture and the minority farmers in this Nation in providing appropriations and report language which will assist in a long-term problem there. I am pleased to say the conferees, in addition to the overall relief provisions, have included at least three other items of importance to me, two of which I authored after listening to producers throughout South Georgia. One provision will adjust the Conservation Reserve Program contracts to avoid a further decline in low timber prices throughout the Southeast, and the other will ensure that the Secretary makes available guaranteed loans for the purpose of irrigation installation. The third, which I am pleased to support, offered by my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), will provide for indemnity payments to compensate a number of cotton producers who, through no fault of their own, were left holding the bag when a licensed warehouseman went bankrupt earlier this year. I urge adoption of the conference report, and it is a good bill. The current market condition for the sale of harvested timber throughout the Southeast is poor, due in part to the increased harvesting activity in the aftermath of the fires which scorched, but did not completely destroy thousands of acres of commercial pine trees in Florida. Many farms which contain land subject to contract under the Conservation Reserve Program require thinning of pine stands in 1998 or in 1999, as a condition of continued participation in the program. Farmers with land under contract were concerned that the current market condition for timber throughout the Southeast is such that this required thinning activity could exacerbate the oversupply which has resulted in record low prices for harvested trees. I asked for and the conferees agreed to report language that a delay in this requirement is warranted, in order to give the market a chance to absorb the current glut, and for prices to rebound. Therefore, the conferees have directed that the Secretary authorize no less than a two-year extension period on the requirement that owners of land under Conservation Reserve Program contracts should prune, thin or conduct stand improvement activities otherwise required to be completed in 1998 or 1999. Many of the crop losses suffered through the country during 1998 were due to drought conditions, sustained by dryland farming operations. Many of the dryland farmers report that they could minimize their losses due to drought conditions in future years if they had access to loan financing for installation of irrigation systems, including retention ponds. I believe that the policy of the Congress in responding to disasters should include measures which would serve to mitigate losses from future disasters of the same nature, which are certain to occur again. I asked and the conferees have directed the Secretary to provide loans to borrowers who farm in areas subject to a past Secretarial Declaration of Disaster, due to drought conditions. In view of the widespread drought conditions this bill is attempting to relieve, directing the Secretary to place a priority on irrigation- related lending is vital.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 4646, which is a bill to provide for substantial reductions in the price of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, this is a time when seniors seem to be taking the brunt of the cuts in health care costs, specifically in areas such as home health care and venipuncture. So I am honored to support legislation that would make prescription drugs affordable for our seniors. Today our parents and our grandparents are being forced to pay much steeper prices for prescription drugs than the so-called most favored customers of drug companies, such as HMOs, large hospital chains, and indeed the Federal Government. This is wrong. These entities are able to buy drugs at discounted prices, and drug companies subsequently raise their prices to seniors and others who pay for needed prescriptions for themselves. A Federal study that was initiated by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), who was the originator of this bill, and we congratulate him, asserts that our senior citizens are paying twice what the most favored customers are paying. This bill provides the solution to the problem by creating a level playing field. It allows retail pharmacies to buy medications used by senior citizens directly from the General Services Administration of the Federal Government. Because the GSA is one of the entities that is able to purchase these prescription medications at much lower prices, this procedure will allow pharmacists to pass on significant cost savings to our senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this concept, and I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his foresight in working on this issue, and all of the other cosponsors who have joined, such as the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), to make sure that we lift this issue up to our Nation's consciousness and that as soon as possible we try to provide some relief for our seniors in the purchase of their much-needed prescription drugs. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I again congratulate him for the hard work that he has done in pursuing this issue.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against consideration of the amendment, pursuant to the rules of the House, because an amendment in the form of a limitation must await the end of the reading of the bill.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I object to consideration of the amendment and raise a point of order for consideration of the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to efforts to limit or reduce funding for the Unites States Army School of the Americas. For those colleagues of mine who may still have concerns about the School, I draw your attention to the language in the FY 1998 Appropriations bill. I believe it adequately and responsibly deals with any remaining questions or concerns about the school. Specifically, it prohibits the use of international military education training funds for the school until: (1) the Secretary of Defense certifies that training provided by the School of Americas is fully consistent with U.S. training and doctrine, (2) the Secretary of State has issued specific guidelines governing selection and screening of candidates for the school, and (3) the Secretary of Defense has submitted a report on the training activities of the school. For the past five and a half years, I have had the honor of representing the area of southwest Georgia where Fort Benning and the School are located. I am proud of the school as I am proud of all other institutions that make up our military. I believe it is the best armed forces in the world and the most well run. The United States Army School of the Americas is but one small institution in our entire military system. It is an institution that has provided professional training to over 58,000 military and civilian police personnel form throughout Latin America--training that includes classes covering the principles of human rights and representative democracy. The school's contribution to the transformation of Latin America from totalitarianism to democracy has been tremendous. Today, only Cuba remains a totalitarian stronghold. Representative government has begun to take root in every other country in the region. As the record shows, many of the school's graduates have played leading roles in this transformation. If you have an opportunity to talk to these graduates, many will tell you that the values they studied and discussed during their stay at the school influenced their political thinking and motivated them in their countries' fight for democracy. In spite of this record, the school is once again under attack. Without one shred of real evidence, the people who are involved in these misguided attacks falsely accuse the school of promoting totalitarianism and torture. If you get beyond the rhetoric, which can be as deceptive as it is emotional, you will find their case is factually based on just two things: one, the few graduates who have been involved in human rights abuses--and two, certain military intelligence training manuals which were once used at the school in classes attended by some of the students, although not all--which the school got rid of six years ago. It's true some of the school's trainees have been linked to human rights abuses. Some, in fact, have been linked to sickening atrocities. But this, alone, is not evidence of wrongdoing at the school. As a matter of fact, most of the graduates have been among the good guys in the region's shift to democracy. Graduates have instituted human rights reforms in their militaries, prevented military coups against freely- elected civilian governments, and have made their soldiers more professional servants of democratic governments. We need this to continue. The Latin American democracies are very fragile, this is not the time to stop the work we have started with our neighbors. This whole argument gets a little ridiculous. We know of other Latin American human rights abusers who attended colleges and universities in the United States. One is the notorious Hector Gramajo of Guatemala, who did not attend the School of the Americas but did graduate from Harvard. Personally, I think it would be absurd to brand Harvard as a school of assassins or call for its closure. In his own report on the school, Representative Kennedy says: ``We do not question the good values and the commitment of the U.S. personnel at the school today.'' According to his report, the reason for attacking the existing school is to make a fresh start. But that start has already been made. The school and its curriculum have undergone intense scrutiny over the past few years, and instruction on human rights and democratic principles has been exhaustively reviewed, sharpened and expanded. This institution is one of the most transparent in the U.S. military. The United States Army School of the Americas has been investigated and studied by the DOD Inspector General's Office, by the General Accounting Office, and by an outside private consulting firm. Every course except for the computer course has mandatory human rights instruction. Every instructor is certified to teach human rights. The school has a permanent human rights council and a Board of Visitors on which strong human rights' advocates serve. All say the school is effectively promoting U.S. policy on human rights and democracy, and in no way is violating it. This is certainly a cost-effective program. For less than $4 million a year, the school is promoting democracy, building stronger relationships with our neighbors, and combating narcotics trafficking. The school's critics never consider the cost of the crimes and human rights violations that were not committed because of the school's influence. The critics never count the benefits of the drug labs taken down, the terrorism prevented, the mines removed by trained professionals, and the peacekeeping operations. The school teaches all of these things, and its graduates carry out these missions day-in and day-out. Just listen to what the officials and agencies responsible for developing and implementing our foreign policy have to say about the school. Our drug czar, who served as a former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Southern Command, has said: As Commander in Chief, my responsibilities included furthering the development of professional Latin American armed forces that promoted and protected human rights and that were supportive of democratic governance. The School of Americas was, and continues to be, the Department of Defense's pre-eminent educational institution for accomplishing these goals. The State Department has stated: The School of Americas today is an important instrument for advancing our goals for the hemisphere. The school's curriculum has changed to reflect the end of the Cold War and our commitment to democracy, human rights, and development in Latin America. And Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Henry H. Shelton, has commented: I firmly believe that the US effort to promote democracy, encourage regional cooperation, foster respect for human rights, and reduce the flow of illegal drugs in this hemisphere would be seriously affected if the School were closed. This is an issue that touches me personally. I regularly visit the school. I know the men and women who serve there. These are highly-trained, dedicated professionals who believe deeply in their country and in the country's mission to promote human rights and democratic principles everywhere. It is wrong to accuse them of violating their trust and working against the interests of democracy when all of the evidence reaffirms that this is not true. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to visit the school, learn more about the job it is doing, and not to rush to judgment on the basis of false and unfounded accusations made by people who may have good intentions, but who have little regard for the facts. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the truth. Support the United States Army School of the Americas.

Mr. BISHOP. I will be happy if the Chair would make a ruling.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, after experiencing one weather-related disaster after another, including this year's drought, the future of production agriculture and family farming in middle and south Georgia faces a threat of almost unprecedented proportions. This is not a sudden, overnight crisis. Farmers, bankers, and communities dependent on production agriculture have been in a crisis mode for some time. Our farmers have faced a threatening situation that has now become even more severe. Over the past few weeks, I have visited farms to meet with farmers all across the Second District and to see first-hand the destruction that has been wrought by the droughts and other disasters which have struck our area. Indeed, as mentioned by Ms. Kaptur, the University of Georgia has estimated farmgate value lost this year at over $767 million. Farmers want indemnification payments that will give them the same kind of safety-net our government offers to other nations in Asia, such as South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and the Phillippines--to bail them out in their time of crisis. Farmers want relief from high production costs and low commodity prices. I promised I would carry that message back to Washington and work with my colleagues in Congress and the Administration to get some relief. I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting this motion to instruct the Ag Appropriators to designate disaster spending as ``Emergency Spending'' under our current Budget Rules.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise this evening in support of the Bilbray amendment. I recognize in this amendment the heart and soul of a bill I introduced in June of 1997--H.R. 2034, the Tobacco Use by Minors Deterrence Act. While the Bilbray amendment moves in the right direction, by providing community service, fines and loss of driver's license for kids who are caught with tobacco products, I urge my colleagues to consider the other aspects of the teen access problem that remain to be addressed. The bill I authored provides loss of license to sell by retail outlets for repeated infractions. It requires parental notification of violations by kids. It requires training of employees, posting of notices, and lock-out devices for vending machines. In short, it provides for a shared responsibility by kids, families, law enforcement, and retailers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our kids against tobacco use while protecting the right of informed adults to make a choice. I urge my colleagues to remember that tobacco is a legal product for informed, consenting adults. The approach found in the Bilbray amendment, and in my bill, encourages respect for the law, but at the same time it recognizes that tobacco is a legal product, which is important to my Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Bilbray amendment because it sends the right kind of message to underage youth.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the slain officers who valiantly have defended the people's House last Friday, Special Agent John Gibson and Special Agent Jacob Chestnut. Shakespeare wrote, ``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.'' So it was with Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. They, too, played many roles. They were sons, husbands, fathers, friends, coworkers. They were great men, great not because of the titles they carried, not because of the uniforms they wore. They were great not because of where they worked, nor because of who they worked with. No, they were great because, measured by the true standard of greatness set by Jesus, that is, ``he who is great among you shall be your servant and he who is greatest shall be servant unto all,'' they measured up. They served us all. They stood by the door to protect us and thousands who visit this Capitol each day. Both literally and figuratively, they served us and America by giving their last full measure of devotion and to protect us and the House of Democracy. Too often, those in exalted places of power overlook the nameless persons who serve and wait. Whether those who sweep the floors, hold the doors, service or drive the elevators, serve the food, cut the grass, or clean the toilets, they are too often overlooked. But they, too, are great, because they also serve. We are grateful to God and to the families of Officers Gibson and Chestnut for allowing us in America to benefit from their service. Yes, all the world is a stage and all the men and women merely players. Each has its entrance and his exit and these two in their time played many parts. For their service and their friendship, we are grateful. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask to insert into the Record the following Memorandum which the American Family Life Assurance Company (``AFLAC''), a Georgia company, has submitted to Ambassador Barshevsky, the United States Trade Representative. The United States Trade Representative will be leading an interagency review process to consider her decision regarding a violation of the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement. She has asked that submission be made to her office, and I think it appropriate to share with the House the AFLAC submission, which I know will be of interest to many both inside and outside the insurance industry. Memorandum To: Interagency Task Force on Yasuda Fire & Marine's Activities in the Third Sector From: Alan Wm. Wolff, Charles D. Lake II Date: July 27, 1998 Re: Scope of Review and Copies of AFLAC's Submissions Yasuda Fire & Marine Co., Ltd. has entered the third sector and has caused and is causing ``radical change'' in the business environment of the third sector. Therefore, in response to a request from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, we are pleased to submit on behalf of American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus (``AFLAC'') additional copies of our submissions regarding Yasuda Fire & Marine's activities in violation of the U.S.- Japan Insurance Agreement. The interagency review of Yasuda Fire & Marine's activities should be conducted on the basis of the primary object and purpose of the U.S.-Japan Insurance Agreement, which is enhancing U.S. market access in Japan. The U.S.-Japan Insurance Agreement is designed to promote liberalization of the Japanese insurance market by preserving the third sector until the primary first and second sectors have been liberalized by the Government of Japan. To achieve this objective, the Japanese Government agreed to provide a ``stand-still'' in the third sector, until the primary first and second sectors have been liberalized. ``Stand-still'' means that giant Japanese insurance companies such as Yasuda Fire & Marine are currently not permitted to enter the third sector (i.e., stand-alone cancer or medical market) or cause ``radical change in the business environment'' of the third sector. This commitment is premised on the fact that these giant Japanese companies have been the principal beneficiaries of the highly protected primary sector in Japan. The basic bargain struck under the agreement is that until companies like Yasuda are forced to face international competition in the primary sector, giant Japanese companies would not be allowed to penetrate the third sector. The U.S.-Japan Insurance Agreement is about one thing and one thing only, that is, access to the Japanese market for the sale of insurance. It is essential that the interagency task force conduct its review of Yasuda Fire & Marine's activities in the third sector of the Japanese market by examining the evidence based on the object, purpose, and specific requirements of the agreement. A single, narrow focus on the question of whether CIGNA ``controls'' INA Himawari does not provide an appropriate basis for review of the available evidence and relevant issues. Yasuda Fire & Marine's activities in the third sector pose an unprecedented trade policy challenge to the United States with respect to its ability to enforce its trade agreements. It involves a clever scheme by a giant Japanese company to use its previously unsuccessful joint-venture partner both as a sword and shield to circumvent a trade agreement. Accordingly, we urge the interagency task force to consider the following facts: Yasuda announced its agreement to buy majority ownership of INA Life, CIGNA's unsuccessful subsidiary, in August 1996. Yasuda renamed the subsidiary INA Himawari (``Sunflower'') to add the Yasuda corporate symbol to the name of the subsidiary to provide public identification of the entity as part of Yasuda. Yasuda covered INA Himawari promotional materials in sunflowers to further establish in the public's mind that INA Himawari products were Yasuda policies. Yasuda transferred 10,000 of its agents to INA Himawari to sell third sector products, and there is a potential for approximately 60,000 additional Yasuda agents to be transferred. Yasuda has linked its proprietary computer sales systems, integrating its new ``subsidiary'' into its database, thus enabling the two companies to provide a seamless line of insurance products. Yasuda represented to its agents that INA Himawari was in fact its subsidiary. Yasuda's agents acting through INA Himawari targeted AFLAC's policy holders for replacement sales. Yasuda used its keiretsu links to further extend policies into the third sector. Yasuda cross-subsidized the sale of INA Himawari products by offering its agents special incentives rewarding aggressive sales of INA Himawari products. Yasuda violated Japanese law in several regards in selling these policies in the third sector. Yasuda agents: Offered rebates to new policy holders; Misrepresented INA Himawari as a Yasuda subsidiary; Conducted inappropriate product comparisons; and Provided inappropriate information on AFLAC's cash surrender refund amounts. Without agreeing to sell off their companies, change their corporate names and identities, take on platoons of outside managers, and disclose proprietary information, it is impossible for AFLAC or other foreign companies to enter into similar arrangements with other giant Japanese insurance companies. The transfer of Yasuda's agents to INA Himawari is the direct result of CIGNA's withdrawal from the life sector. It is impossible for other foreign companies dedicated to staying in the Japanese market to commit to such arrangements. As Yasuda Fire & Marine's penetration of the third sector continues, foreign firms have been and are currently denied opportunities accorded to Yasuda and other giant Japanese insurance companies in the primary life and non-life sectors. We further urge the interagency task force to consider among other things the following issues: Are Yasuda Fire & Marine's activities in the third sector consistent with the object and purpose of the U.S.-Japan Insurance Agreement? Has Yasuda Fire & Marine entered the third sector or has it caused or is it causing ``radical change'' in the business environment of the third sector? Does participation in ownership by a U.S. entity in a joint-venture provide a blanket exemption for the Japanese partner from the agreement's provisions? Has Yasuda Fire & Marine or INA Himawari engaged in activities designed to mislead agents and consumers into thinking that INA Himawari is Yasuda's subsidiary or a functional member of Yasuda keiretsu? CIGNA is disinvesting from the Japanese market and seeking to increase its exit price by taking advantage of the U.S.- Japan Insurance Agreement. Are CIGNA's actions consistent with the U.S. objective to improve market access? Does permitting Yasuda Fire & Marine to continue its activities in the third sector through INA Himawari promote U.S. market access to the Japanese insurance market? When a prima facie case of a trade violation is presented, and a responding company has exclusive possession of certain relevant information, the burden of production should shift to that responding party. Further, if that responding party refuses to cooperate and provide the necessary information to conduct an impartial review, an adverse inference should be used against that party. The interagency task force's decision should promote market access in Japan and discourage other Japanese companies from using their U.S. joint-venture partner to circumvent U.S.- Japan trade agreements.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for allowing me to speak on this measure. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the bill's cosponsor with me, the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Souder), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), ranking member, and the members of the Subcommittee on Empowerment for their expeditious consideration of this bill. I would also like to commend the United States Chamber of Commerce for being willing to step up and get involved. Mr. Speaker, government cannot do everything and certainly we need law enforcement, we need interdiction, and we need more people policing our streets for drugs. But at the same time, we need to stop the market for them. We need to relieve those people who are addicted. This bill, I believe, goes a long way to doing that. And the fact that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stepped up to the plate and gotten involved demonstrates how well we can work together to create a partnership in addressing such a serious concern as the epidemic of drug use and drug abuse. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend my colleagues in this House, on the committee and across the House, for the bipartisan effort in support of this measure. Drug abuse and drug use is not a Democrat nor a Republican issue. It is a people issue. It is an issue that compromises the effectiveness of the people and the workers of the United States of America. For that I would like to commend my colleagues for coming together in a bipartisan manner to address this problem. As a cosponsor, I rise to support this very important legislation which provides funding and the necessary infrastructure to help small businesses, that are the lifeblood of our economy, implement drug-free workplace policies. Ninty-eight percent of the Fortune 200 companies have drug-free workplace programs in operation. They understand the importance of this issue. According to a 1997 Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration study, 11 percent of workers in businesses with 25 or fewer employees admitted current illegal drug use, over twice the rate reported by employees in larger firms. Small businesses understand the necessity for drug-free workplace programs, but do not have the resources and the expertise to implement these programs. This bill will provide them with that assistance. Mr. Speaker, the abuse of drugs and alcohol in the workplace is a significant hazard to working Americans and it is a serious drain on the economy in terms of lost productivity, increased health costs, and wasted potential. The 1996 Fortune 500 companies Conference Board Survey estimated the cost to the economy from absenteeism, injuries, diminished productivity, to be $200 billion. The U.S. Chamber's Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace estimates that annual productivity losses from substance abuse amount to $640 for every American workers. This is too high a price to pay, both monetarily and emotionally, as substance abuse not only affects the abuser but everyone around him or her as well. H.R. 3853 addresses the problem by providing incentives and assistance that will help businesses help their employees as approximately 70 percent of drug users are employed. The bill accomplishes this in three ways. First, it creates a demonstration grant program for nonprofit intermediaries to provide assistance to small businesses in developing a drug-free workplace by using a variety of strategies to include employee assistance, training, and intervention. Second, the bill encourages States to provide incentives to businesses that adopt a drug-free workplace policy, such as reducing worker's compensation insurance premiums for drug-free businesses. And third, the bill uses the over 900 Small Business Development Centers around the country to assist in providing technical assistance to businesses in developing effective drug-free workplace policies. Mr. Speaker, drug use in all sectors of our society is prevalent and must be attacked on all fronts. H.R. 3853 attacks our drug problem in the workplace. According to the Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey, the workplace therefore provides an ideal opportunity to steer the addicted into treatment and to educate both employees and family members on the dangers of drug use. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure and vote ``yes'' for a drug-free workplace. Again, I thank my colleagues, the committee, the ranking member, the chairman, for their courtesies, their kindnesses, and their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor in a very expeditious manner.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this repetitive, redundant amendment. It seems that we have got to face this every year. But 2 years ago we forged an agreement between the government and our farmers, and investment decisions have been made based on a 7-year farm bill. Now, after 2 years, we are threatening to renege on that commitment. I think that is absolutely awful. We have made a contract with our farmers. They have relied, to their detriment, on that; and here we come now as a Congress and want to pull the rug out from under them. It is not fair, it is not right, it is un-American, and we just not ought to do it. Mr. Chairman, I believe we ought to vote this amendment down today, just as we voted it down last year and just as we voted it down the year before that. This is a bad amendment, it does not reflect good policy. The statistics that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) cited are based on obsolete information. We have a no-net-cost peanut program now. It does not cost the government a thing. What we are trying to do is protect American farmers and make sure they have a level playing field with producers in other parts of the world with whom they have to compete. This is a bad amendment. It rejects and reneges on the contract we have made with our farmers and it sets bad precedent. We ought to stand up to our agreements and live out this farm bill in a way that our farmers will know that when the Congress speaks, that we can be counted on to keep our word. Mr. Chairman, I urge the rejection of this amendment, and urge us to pass this bill and get on with the business of this House.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4059, the Military Construction Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1999. I wish to commend Chairman Packard, Ranking Member Hefner and the Committee on Appropriations for crafting a bill which provides the necessary funding to improve the quality of life for our men and women in the Armed Forces. I believe that this measure goes far 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, Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, home of the 347th Fighter Wing, and the Marine Corps Logistics Center 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 we provide inadequate facilities for them to work out of. This measure would provide Fort Benning with $28,600,000 to construct barracks, a soldier community building, a battalion headquarters with classroom building, and company operations buildings. It will also provide the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany $2,800,000 with a Child Development Center which will increase the Base's current capacity of 228 to over 300 children. This center will address the growing demand for quality child care on our bases. And, it will provide $11,000,000 for alterations to a medical and a dental clinic. These expansion and modernization plans will positively contribute to the delivery of quality health care and patient accessibility to quality medical care. The portions of the bill I just spoke of place a human face on this debate. We know that we have the most technologically advanced military in the world. It is time we 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! Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very serious and profound amendment. And as all of the speakers thus far indicated, this is not to be taken lightly. I offer an amendment to the Istook amendment. While I am a cosponsor of Istook, I do believe that Istook can be improved upon to meet some of the objections raised by the critics. But before I get into the details of my amendment, I would like to make some general comments. Many years ago in England, Charles Dickens wrote in his book, A Tale of Two Cities, that it was the best of times and it was the worst of times. Today, here in America, I am reminded of those words, for we, too, have the best yet the worst of times. On the one hand, times are good. The economy is booming; the stock market is soaring; employment is up; wages are up; inflation down; interest rates down; corporate profits up. The deficit is coming down. The budget is on the way to being balanced. The major crime rate is down. More people are healthier and have access to health care than ever before. Things appear to be going well. But, on the other hand, there are strong indicators that our morals have decayed and that too many of our children are not learning and living the high moral values and do not have the respect for human life and human property. Youth crime and violence is up. Children are breaking and entering and stealing guns and ammunition and opening fire on their teachers and their students, and youngsters angry at parents set fire to the beds that they are sleeping in, killing them without remorse. Drive-by shootings in urban and rural areas killing rap stars and innocent babies persist. Drugs, dropouts, hopelessness, 12- and 13- year-olds fully believing that they will not live to see their 21st birthday. Yes, it may be the best of times, but it is also the worst of times. When I was a boy growing up in Mobile, Alabama, each and every day for 12 years I started school with The Lord's Prayer, the Twenty-third Psalm, the Pledge to the Flag, and My Country Tis of Thee. The stated moral values that are repeated day in and day out in those passages of the respect for the flag, the patriotism learned from the pledge and the song gave generations of students, including me, a foundation of character, patriotism and love for our country. That is not so today. For over 30 years with the series of Supreme Court decisions, the pendulum has swung away from the freedom of religion that was envisioned and embraced by the Founding Fathers, to a wall of separation, of hostility and of contempt for the expression of religious faith in public places, including our schools. There is now more protection for nude art and pornographic literature than there is for religious expressions in public places. That, Mr. Speaker, is simply not right. So I congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for leading the effort to restore religious freedom to our public life. I am a cosponsor of the Istook amendment, and I intend to vote for it. But I believe that it can be perfected and it can be made just a little bit better. The first portion of my amendment, which has been asked to be divisible, would establish as the amendment's purpose to secure the people's right to freedom of religion, as opposed to the committee's version, which would secure the people's right to acknowledge God. Because God is a term that is used in western religions to refer to a deity, but other religious faiths use other terms rather than God, such as Allah or Vishnu or Shiva or Brahma, in the case of Hinduism, or Kami, in the case of Shintoism. And some such as Taoism do not center themselves about a deity. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in order to make the Istook amendment more ecumenical so that it will not be targeted to those of us who share the Judeo-Christian faith but rather open to reflect the diversity of all of America's religions, I believe that it would be appropriate for us to amend that language. The second part of my amendment would simply remove some of the language that has been criticized by speaker after speaker today, and that is the language that is called the equal advice language that would remove the denied equal advice to a benefit language and prohibit the United States or any State from requiring any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayer or otherwise compel or discriminate against religion. This would eliminate a lightning rod for litigation or what would constitute equal access. Here we are dealing with something that is obviously going to cause reasonable minds to disagree. Rather than fret over that, if we can protect religious expression and carefully crafting the language so as not to invite disagreement, I believe we can accomplish the purpose. Mr. Speaker, I do not have all of the answers to what is happening in our society today. But I believe that the values that I learned day in and day out for 12 years reciting those passages of scripture, the prayer, pledging to the flag and singing My Country Tis of Thee helped give me a grounding in values and respect that seems to be devoid with today's generation. It is my hope that by the adoption of the language in the Bishop amendment that we would be able to accomplish the purpose of restoring the right of people to stress their religious heritage and faith in public places, including schools, without discrimination and without the ethnocentric or Judeo-Christian emphasis on an anthropomorphic God. I would ask the Members of this House to consider if they do not feel comfortable voting for the Istook amendment as drafted, here is something that they can vote for. It answers the problems that many of the critics have raised, and it still accomplishes the purpose. If this amendment is adopted, our Constitution would simply have these additional words: to secure the people's right to freedom of religion according to the dictates of conscience, neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers or otherwise compel or discriminate against religion. Here we have it. Fully balancing the right to participate and to express religious traditions and faith or not to do so. Not tipping the balance one way or the other. I would like to ask that Members consider this is not coercive, this is not a religious test for benefit of government. In fact, we remove the benefits language altogether. It is clear that there will be no establishment of a religion. It is clear that people will be allowed to recognize their beliefs and heritage on public property, including schools and that that will not be infringed. How will that happen? People say we do not want to embarrass a child. This will foster diversity. One of the beautiful things about America is that we have a diverse population. And as early in life as school children can learn that there are differences that need be respected, the better we will be and the better they will be as adults. So if they can learn to hear dissenting or differing views in the proper context on an equal basis, that would, I believe, stimulate the democratic principle of diversity and would help us to have a much more congenial society, helping us to be able to disagree agreeably. I believe that if we adopt this language, this will take place. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first of all, thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to debate this very, very important issue. I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for his courage in bringing the matter forward. I would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and his staff, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and his staff for the courtesies they have offered to me in helping us get to the floor with this, as well as the chair of the Committee on Rules and the Committee on Rules for their kindness and courtesy in helping us fashion this debate so that we could have a full and thorough discussion. Mr. Speaker, I return back to my opening remarks, that it is the best of times, yet it is the worst of times. We have a great economy, things are going well, but we also have a society that has deteriorating moral values. Our youth seem not to have the values of generations past, and unless we try to recapture those values, our society will be lost. I believe the 30 years of Supreme Court rulings that have erected this artificial wall between our religious faith and traditions and our public life and our schoolchildren has led us down a primrose path to destruction, and I regret that very much. I hope that through the passage of this amendment, perfected by the Bishop amendment, that we will be able to stem that tide and we can move America into the next millennium with a glorious and bright future. As I prepare to take my seat and close, I do not know whether this amendment will pass or not, but I leave you with the words that come from one of the Hebrew writers in the Book of Chronicles: ``If My people which are called by My name shall humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, will forgive their sins, and will heal their land.'' Let us pass a religious freedom amendment. Let us pass the best possible religious freedom amendment, and hopefully it, in part, along with our other efforts, will help to heal our land. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would hasten to point out that there is nothing in the Istook amendment nor the Bishop amendment that would require that any school child have to stand outside because they disagreed with a prayer that was being said. Nothing in this amendment would require such nonsense, and if it were ever implemented in such a way that require such nonsense, then I would be the first to urge the ACLU and every opponent to take the necessary steps to see that those school boards discontinue such practice. Mr. Speaker, that would be nonsense to do that, and neither this amendment, the Bishop amendment, nor the Ishtook amendment would countenance such conduct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP. On my amendment, sir?

Mr. BISHOP. Do I have the right to close, Mr. Speaker?