Sanford Bishop

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment of my colleague from Georgia. However, I must respectfully disagree with him. This is a very fundamental question of tolerance and fairness. I think that the intent of this amendment is good. The intent of the Istook amendment is good. I certainly intend to vote for the amendment, because I think it is high time that we protect religious freedom. However, the only way that we can protect religious freedom is to protect everyone's right to worship in his or her tradition. This use of the word capital G-o-d, God, is a term that is used in the Judeo- Christian tradition. It is not used in the Muslim tradition or the Hindu tradition or the Buddhist tradition or the Taoist tradition or the Shinto tradition. For that reason, if we are going to be the land of the free, the home of the brave, if we are going to allow equal opportunity for all to enjoy the protections of this amendment and not just those people who believe in God, then we ought to say, ``In order to secure the people's right to freedom of religion,'' whatever that religion may be. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman spoke to the striking of the portion that refers to God. It is clear that we have more religions in this country, we have a very diverse country, and that there are a number of religions where the deity is referred to by a name other than God. The gentleman and I share a common religious heritage and of course God is certainly appropriate in our faith. However, there are other religions which we are duty bound as upholders of the Constitution, in providing equal protection of all of our laws, to support. For example, the term Allah in the religion of Islam, which they believe means the one and only God; or Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma in the case of the religion of Hinduism; Kami in the religion of Shintoism. Then there is the religion of Taoism which is not centered around a deity at all. And with the complete diversity that our country now shares, it would seem totally inappropriate for us to introduce for the first time into the supreme law of the land, our Constitution, the word ``God'' to the point that it would discriminate against all of these other religious heritages and traditions. For that reason, for that reason only, we want to make it sectarian, neutral and ecumenical, so that rather than saying to secure the people's right to acknowledge God, that we say to secure the people's right to freedom of religion and that protects whatever that person's religious heritage might be. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is aware that nowhere in our existing Constitution now does the word ``God'' appear, not even in the First Amendment. And while we recognize that on our money and in the Constitutions of most States the word ``God'' does appear, not in the supreme law of the land, our United States Constitution.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have to point out in response to the gentleman from Florida that it is clear from the wording of the first sentence of this amendment that everything that follows is prefaced as its purpose upon securing the people's right to acknowledge God. This is a technical amendment. I am trying to help the committee's amendment and the Istook amendment by at least making sure that no one is discriminated against, that any religious tradition or belief is protected, not just those people who want to acknowledge God, whom I would want to acknowledge, but there are Muslims, there are Taoists, there are Shintos, there are Hindus, there are Buddhists, there are Zoroasters. All of these religions deserve the same protections if they are practiced by people who have the protections of our Constitution. Unless this language is changed, I believe that this amendment will be fatally flawed, because it is targeted solely at those people who believe in God. All I want to do through my amendment is to broaden it to the point where it protects the freedom of religion, whatever that religious tradition might be, whether it is the practice of worshiping God, as I do, or Allah or any of the other of the world's recognized religions. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker apparently is a little bit confused in suggesting that we would in our amendment take out the word ``God'' and acknowledge something generic. All we are trying to acknowledge in the language that would be substituted is the title of the very amendment that we are voting on, the Religious Freedom Amendment, and we are saying that the purpose is to secure freedom of religion. It is titled the Religious Freedom Amendment, RFA. Why that would be ironic or contrary to the desires of people who want to have the Religious Freedom Amendment passed, I do not know. It seems to me to make good sense. It is ecumenical. It will support and protect the religious traditions of all people, not just those people who believe in the God, capital G-O-D. It would reflect those who believe in any other deity or no deity. I personally am Christian. I believe in God, in Jesus. However there are others who do not, and I respect their right under this Constitution of the United States to that belief. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I will yield him back the same amount of time I consume.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. In the context of this amendment it is spelled capital G-O-D, which is specific, as opposed to the context in which the conversation the gentleman had where it was used, it was a small g-o-d; to my god, it would be a small g-o-d. In that context it is not universal. In the context that we want to put it in the Constitution it should be universal, and that is why we are asking to substitute that language of the Religious Freedom Amendment, to protect, to secure freedom of religion.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, in Islam, the god is Allah, which means the one and only god, with a small ``g.''

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the Tobacco Use by Minors Deterrence Act, which, if enacted, would actually address and stop access by children to tobacco. It is a model law tying health funds for States to their efforts to keep tobacco away from our kids. It outlaws the sale to or possession by kids of tobacco products. It requires parental notification of violations by kids. It provides civil fines and loss of driver's license for kids who are caught. It requires a license to sell tobacco products similar to those for sale of alcohol. It provides loss of license to sell by retail outlets for repeated infractions. 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. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider supporting this bill before even thinking about enacting a huge regressive tax on our constituents. My bill protects our kids against tobacco, but at the same time it keeps a legal business viable, which is crucial to my Congressional District, and allows adults to make their own choice.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my concerns regarding current violations of the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement. Effective enforcement of existing trade agreements must be a fundamental objective of U.S. trade policy. I am sad to report, however, that blatant violations of the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement are now taking place with barely a word of protest from the United States Government. The United States-Japan Insurance Agreement is one of the United States' primary market access agreements with Japan. It is supposed to promote liberalization of the Japanese insurance market by maintaining existing safeguards in the third sector, where United States companies have traditionally had success, until the primary first and second sectors have been liberalized by the Japanese Government. Currently, however, this arrangement is under direct attack by Yasuda Fire and Marine Co., Ltd., Japan's second largest non-life insurance company-- who has used its affiliate and de facto subsidiary INA Himawari Life Insurance Co., Ltd. to prematurely ramp up its presence in the third sector. If we allow Yasuda to continue expanding its third sector presence before the life and non-life sectors are substantially deregulated, the Agreement will lose its primary incentive for compliance by Japanese firms (i.e., the promise of access to the third sector). Although it failed to comply with the Agreement's critical third sector provisions, Japan appears ready to start the clock running on the two and one-half year lead up to opening the third sector to large Japanese companies on July 1 of this year. The Government of Japan must not be allowed to take this action until measures are taken to remedy the violations. The future of United States companies in the Japanese market is at stake. The Administration should take immediate action to ensure full and effective enforcement of this agreement. The current violations also pose a substantial threat to U.S. foreign and trade policy. If the United States is unable to take forceful action in the face of clear violations of the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement, the Administration will be signaling Japan, as well as other countries that would negotiate with us in the future, that the United States is unwilling or unable to enforce commitments made to it.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and other members of the Committee on National Security for accommodating my amendment as part of the manager's en bloc amendment. The amendment that I offered allows service personnel who serve on the Joint Task Force for Full Accounting in Southeast Asia and who are working to seek a full accounting of our MIAs, it will allow them to receive hardship duty pay. There are about 155 members of the task force at any given time and hardship duty pay is up to $300 per month per person. The men and women on these teams have volunteered for this tour of duty. They are dedicated to recovering and repatriating the remains of their colleagues, but must often work in areas that are littered with unexploded cluster bomb units and Sidewinder missiles. Add to that the malaria and snake infested, poisonous snake infested areas. They provide great service to our Nation by giving the families of our lost service personnel hope and closure. They fully deserve our support. This small measure will demonstrate our commitment and show that we appreciate the danger that they encounter while on the job. I had the opportunity to travel there and to see them at work and to experience firsthand the arduous ordeal that they go through in discharging this very, very sacred duty of returning the remains of our lost servicemen and women. I appreciate this, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the accommodation and certainly this is, I think, in the best interest of our service personnel and certainly in the best interest of the families of our lost servicemen who have not yet been repatriated.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3694, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Let me first congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their tireless efforts in producing a bipartisan bill that addresses the needs of the intelligence community. There is arguably no greater consumer of intelligence than our Nation's Armed Forces. Despite the end of the Cold War, the requirements of our military for better and more timely intelligence has actually increased rather than decreased. This is the result of a number of factors, including transitional issues such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps no incident better illustrates the threat that terrorism poses to the men and women of our armed services than the cowardly and callous terrorist bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Our forces in Bosnia remain exposed to the threat of terrorism, and it is the intelligence that is collected, processed, analyzed and disseminated that continues to aid in shielding our sons and daughters against this deadly threat. Additionally, our military has drawn down significantly in the aftermath of the Cold War. In fact, the military has experienced more cutbacks than any other Federal agency, and quite frankly in my view the reductions have gone too far. Despite these reductions, the missions have increased as has the tempo of operations associated with those missions. Today we have members of our services in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia conducting missions ranging from peacekeeping to enforcement of United Nations sanctions to defense of nations. Intelligence is a force multiplier, and if we are to continue on a downward path of funding our Nation's armed services, then we definitely need to take every step we can to ensure that our intelligence capabilities are sufficient to provide the policymakers with the information needed to make key decisions affecting national security. This bill provides the necessary resources to ensure that our intelligence capabilities are sufficient to meet the contingencies of the next generation. Mr. Chairman, last January I traveled to Southeast Asia to review our intelligence activities and our operations in that region of the world, and I focused my attention specifically on efforts aimed at achieving a full accounting of Americans that are still unaccounted for as a result of the Vietnam war. I want to ensure our Nation's veterans and the families of those soldiers, airmen, and sailors that are still unaccounted for that the bill that is being considered today 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. Chairman, the intelligence community historically has had a poor record in maintaining a diverse work force. In fact, the intelligence community as a whole lags far behind the Federal labor sector in its representation of minorities and women. This committee recognizes the difficulty faced by intelligence agencies, that of competing with the private sector for minority applicants possessing high technical skills that are critical to intelligence missions. The fact of the matter is that these agencies cannot match the financial incentives and rewards offered by the private sector firms that attract individuals with skills of importance to the intelligence community. This committee has been a supporter of a number of recruitment and training programs aimed at ensuring equal employment opportunity within the intelligence community agencies and developing and retaining personnel that are trained in the skills essential to the effective performance of intelligence missions. I am pleased to report that this bill continues this committee's commitment to those programs, specifically including the Stokes program. I also want to note that I intend to review these programs in the succeeding years to ensure that the desired goals are being achieved and that the programs are being administered in an effective manner. Mr. Chairman, the Intelligence Authorization Act for this year, for 1999, provides critical support to all facets of our intelligence community. Resources are authorized that permit the sustainment of 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 counterproliferation, counternarcotics, and counterterrorism. I am proud to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this bill embodies a very, very important ideal, which I have long supported; namely, that the countries of sub-Saharan Africa should improve their economic lot through development and trade. This bill would begin the process of leading these countries from our traditional direct aid relationship. However, Mr. Speaker, charity begins at home. I and other bipartisan Members with legitimate concerns for the health of the already suffering textile and apparel industries that we represent feel that we have not been allowed an adequate voice in this process. For this reason, my colleagues and I proposed a bipartisan substitute that we hoped that the Committee on Rules would have ruled in order. I firmly believe that our substitute, if it were ruled in order, would result in a healthier U.S. textile and cotton industry, and sorely needed economic development and employment for the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa. The sponsors of this substitute only ask for the chance to vote for a good bill on the floor. We ask this, despite assurances from some of our colleagues, that the bill will be fixed in the Senate. But as I have reminded those Members, those of us who occupy the seats in this House only have a vote in this House, and trusting the Senate to fix what we do not do properly in the House is not a good idea. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule, send it back, allow us to adopt the substitute, which is a win-win for American textiles as well as for sub-Saharan Africa. Help us defeat this rule, vote no on the rule, and then let us put a good bill on the floor so we can help Africa and help American workers.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, we do have a motion to recommit H.R. 1432. The African Growth and Opportunity Act embodies an important ideal for which I have long been in support; namely, that the countries of sub- Saharan Africa should improve their economic lot through development and trade. This bill would begin the process, Mr. Speaker, of weaning these countries from our traditional direct aid relationship. I became an original cosponsor of this bill for several reasons, and I still believe that this ideal can be obtained. However, Mr. Speaker, charity begins at home. It was brought to my attention soon after the bill's introduction that the bill's textile and apparel provisions could cause harm to these U.S. industries as well as cause harm to the U.S. market for cotton. Instead of going to the well and removing my name from the bill, I decided that I should work as an agent of change to convince the bill's sponsors to have these troublesome sections modified. Indeed, the changes that we push for would have resulted in the textile and cotton industries embracing the bill and working for its passage for the betterment of the economies of the United States and sub-Saharan Africa. The changes that we advocated would be of great mutual benefit. In April of last year, nearly a year ago, I secured assurances from the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means that these concerns would be addressed. Not long after this, the ranking member arranged a meeting between our staff, representatives of the textile and cotton industries, and the Committee on Ways and Means' staff. We also continued to dialogue with the administration officials and had the issue of illegal textile and apparel transshipment put to the U.S. trade representatives in the course of the Subcommittee on Trade hearing on the bill. It is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that throughout the process, the administration has agreed that illegal transshipments and protection of domestic industries remains a concern. While the full committee made a late attempt to address the illegal transshipment concerns in its markup of the bill, the remedies provided are widely believed not to be adequately protective of American jobs, while still benefiting a well-developed Asian textile market. For instance, the bill as offered today would disallow benefits for 2 years to any importer found to be engaged in illegal transshipment. However, I myself have seen at the border that inadequate Customs resources do not allow tracking of successor companies which can be back in business in a few days nor does it allow monitoring of the rules of origin. Furthermore, once the illegal goods flow into the U.S. stream of commerce, the damage is already done. To address this reality, we offered a bipartisan substitute before the Committee on Rules. Our substitute would have incorporated substantial penalties on the transshipping companies, allow for seizure and forfeiture of textile and apparel goods and reform U.S. Customs mitigation procedures. Those procedures allow bad actors to escape meaningful fines and penalties and to avoid punitive sanctions. Our substitute would provide that the special access program established by the President should be modeled on the program already in effect for the countries of the Caribbean. This would include only those articles of textile and apparel which have been assembled from fabric formed from the yarn- stage forward in the U.S. and cut in the U.S. The thread used in sewing also must be spun in the U.S. What I have described is commonly referred to as an 807A-type program. It is in this program where the win-win for the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and the U.S. textile and cotton industries lies. In short, Mr. Speaker, I urge that this bill be sent back to committee and that it be perfected so that we can do something for sub- Saharan African countries, as well as the U.S. domestic industries. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. In its current form, I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BISHOP. I think that is a very, very profound question, because I think what the Supreme Court was trying to say was that we have to learn to be tolerant of the views of others, even though they may be different from ours. I think that is a very, very valid statement, a very, very valid principle. However, do we want to draw the line and not be tolerant of the views of others if those views happen to be based in religious tradition, religious practices, religious beliefs? Certainly, that could not be the intent of our Founding Fathers. Certainly, we must want to teach tolerance so that, if people are of different religions, different backgrounds, have different points of view, that they each have the right to express those points of view in an atmosphere of tolerance, particularly government tolerance. I think that that is essentially what this amendment is trying to do. Let us be as tolerant of the expressions of religious belief, regardless of what the religion might be. Let us be as tolerant of that as we would be of a swastika or of burning a flag in public, which is certainly abominable to those of us who are patriotic Americans who revere our flag, but to allow tolerance for those who, through their anger and misguided or misdirection, would destroy our flag or would want to wave a symbol of hate like a swastika, to give them the protection and the tolerance, but not to give that to a young girl who merely wants to take her Bible with her on her school bus on her way to school, to ban that and not give her the protection and the tolerance by her government merely to carry a sacred book on the school bus with her, that could not be the intent of our Founding Fathers, and certainly was not the practice of the custom for most of our country's history. Can you imagine justifying and protecting the use and the waving of a swastika, a symbol of hate, while at the same time, banning a young girl from playing a videotape of herself in a show-and-tell day at school simply because she is singing a religious song in church. It just does not seem to be fair. It is not right. And it is discriminatory. I believe the time has come that we need to stop discriminating against the kind of tolerance that expresses religious traditions while we protect the kind of tolerance that allows hate and racism to be expressed as with the swastika and many other symbols that the Supreme Court has allowed to be protected.

Mr. BISHOP. That is a very interesting concept that the gentleman just raised, because I hear a lot of the opponents or the critics of the amendment suggesting, how are we going to regulate this? How are we going to control who comes in and what they say? We already have in place the mechanisms for controlling the orderly processes of our government operations, for example, the rules of this House, for the operation of our schools, the principals, the school board, the teachers, the faculty. They have a routine. They have procedures. Students know when they are allowed to speak and when they should remain silent. They know that they have to cease speaking while another child is giving his or her recitation or responding in class. There is a protocol. I believe that the people in this country, our school boards in this country, are as creative and as ingenious and as bright as it takes to be able to establish the right kinds of protocol so that every child would be given the opportunity to express him or herself in a way that is evenhanded. We live in a melting pot. America has been always a melting pot with many, many backgrounds and many generations of people coming from all over the world to make their home on these soils. I believe that they bring a very, very interesting set of backgrounds and histories and religious traditions which is a part of our national cultural heritage. We must be willing to expose ourselves and to listen to it, not necessarily agree with everything we hear, but to listen, to listen respectfully and to form our own opinions. I believe that is what this religious freedom amendment is all about. It is not about cramming one particular point of view down anyone's throat. It is about allowing all of the ideas, allowing young people, allowing people who have religious beliefs to be able to express them as they can express any other form of free speech in any context that is not inhibiting and is not discriminatory. I just believe that what the gentleman is trying to do through this amendment and what we all want to see for America will help us to have a much richer heritage and a much more tolerant environment. I do not believe that anybody will be put upon, and I do not believe that any school board would stand for anyone being put upon. Should that happen, those instances where someone abuses that authority, it will be appropriate for the ACLU or for parents or for the community to rise up in arms, to rise up in protest legally or otherwise to make sure that those wrongs are righted.