Sanford Bishop

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would just like to thank my good friend from Oklahoma for organizing this special order and for all of his hard work in behalf of this very important and vital legislation. I respect very, very deeply our Constitution and our First Amendment, but I share the gentleman's concern with the interpretations that have been given of the First Amendment over the last 30 years by our Supreme Court. Ironically, it seems that the Founding Fathers who certainly had the specter of a national religion fresh on their minds probably never, ever envisioned a time in history like we experience today when religious expression and exercise of any kind in a public place is shunned so adamantly by our government. They were running from a government that was too involved in religion, and we now have a government that discriminates against religion. So I want to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for his efforts and for lifting up this issue for the American people and for the Members of this body to carefully deliberate on so that we can really consider where we want to go in the future to right what has been 30 years of the wrong direction. I can remember very vividly when I was a child growing up in Mobile, Alabama, and I started to school and every morning it was the Lord's Prayer, the 23rd Psalm, the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, and My Country 'Tis of Thee. That was regular, it was consistent, and even though we recited it almost by rote, the words of all of those began to have meaning for us. And I believe that somehow those words, through the 12 years of grade school and high school that I attended, made a difference in shaping the values that I have. I am afraid that several generations of America's young people have grown up despiritualized because of this wall of separation that has been placed between our religious values and our life. I learned somewhere that religion is what means the most to a person. I believe as Americans we are very, very reverent, and I think that everyone should have the right to express him or herself in any way that he or she should, within the appropriate and accepted means. This religious freedom amendment that is being offered is very simple. It says simply that to secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience, neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion. Who would have any qualms about that? It goes on to say that the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Now, who should have problems with that? It says, ``Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.'' All of this would appear to be perfectly legitimate and perfectly consistent with what the Founding Fathers had when they drafted the First Amendment to our Constitution. It is certainly consistent with our history, our traditions for most of the 200 plus years of our country's history, save the last 30 years where the Supreme Court has turned us in another direction. I believe that it is appropriate. I believe that it is certainly incumbent upon us to lift this issue and to raise it so that, once again, Americans will have as much protection to express their religious beliefs and heritage, even in a public place as they do to express, to describe, or to observe nude or pornographic material. I think that to offer more protection for pornography than for the sacred, religious beliefs and traditions of the various people in this country is really awful. It is something that is inconsistent with our history and our heritage. I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for his efforts. And I join the gentleman in his efforts to see if we can right that wrong. Now, there are those who would suggest that, if we should do this, that we will somehow be infringing upon the rights of, perhaps, a minority; that there may be a Jewish student in school or a Muslim student in school who might feel ostracized because he or she may be the only child or one of just a few children in the class who may be belonging to a particular religious belief or faith. Well, that may be true that they may be a minority, but we have learned in America that even minorities have rights. Under this religious freedom amendment, even that child who belongs to a minority would have just as much right to pray or to express his or her religious traditions as the majority, the majority faith that would be represented in that particular environment. They say, well, how are we going to manage to make sure that no child gets ostracized or no one is treated unfairly? I suggest to the gentleman that it should be handled in the very same way that teachers and principals and school administrators and school boards handle the order and discipline of our schools today. What has to happen is that school boards must be accountable. They must make sure that whatever policies are applied are applied evenhandedly. And if those policies are applied evenhandedly, even the minority students would have the right to express their religious beliefs with the same dignity and the same respect as any other students in the class. I believe that it is fair. It is basic. I think it is an idea whose time has returned. I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma. I certainly support his efforts. Maybe we may disagree on some of the nuances and some of the specific wording in the amendment, but I think the thought, the principles, and the ideas are the same. I want to join the gentleman and support what he is doing. Maybe at some point we can get together and fine tune the language in a way that it would eliminate any criticism. For example, I believe the gentleman mentioned the word, ``God''. There are some religions that God can be a generic term or God can be an anthropomorphic deity. I do not think it is appropriate for government to decide. So for that reason, if it were my preference, I would remove the word, ``God,'' from the amendment itself, because it appears no where else in the Constitution anyway. But I do not think that that is a severe impediment. I believe that the essence of the amendment is for every person to have the right to express his or her religious beliefs and opinions without being discriminated against and in an evenhanded way. I do not think that government should shun religion just as I do not think government should foster religion. I believe that this amendment, if implemented and if it is applied fairly, and school boards are accountable and hold their employees accountable in the implementation of it, I think it can work well. I think that it will help us to get back to the day where we can restore spirituality and values and principles and character and dignity in our young people, and we can look forward to a brighter future. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding.

Mr. BISHOP. I would be appalled to have that kind of comparison contrast made to mention religious items. Religion is what means most to people. It is revered. It is something that is sacred, whatever that expression may be. If it is religious, it is deeply held and deeply felt. For those of us who feel that a person's right to express his or her religious traditions, whether it is the wearing of religious items, a crucifix, a menorah, or whatever the sacred item might be, and to have that item in his or her possession, and to have that equated with pornography, I think, is abominable. I think it is certainly inconsistent with the noble high ideals of our Founding Fathers when they founded this country and when they wrote what I believe to be one of the greatest documents ever written in history, and that is our Constitution, next to the Bible, of course. I feel very strongly that this is wrong, that the interpretation, the pendulum, has swung too far in that direction, and we need to right a wrong. I believe that the way to do that is through the enactment of a Constitutional amendment to set it straight once and for all.

Mr. BISHOP. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and supporter of this measure which would designate a building in downtown Atlanta as the Sam Nunn Federal Center. This is a fitting tribute to a friend who happens to be one of the great Georgians and great Americans of our time. I am proud to have had the opportunity to serve with Senator Sam Nunn as a member of the Georgia Congressional delegation for four years. The benefit of his counsel and his friendship, is one of the great privileges that I have had in public life. Senator Nunn has played a major role in shaping our times. He is, in fact, an historic figure. Our country is stronger and the world is freer and more secure because of his 12 years of leadership as Chairman and Ranking Minority Leader on the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, no one played a bigger role in building our modern military infrastructure than Senator Nunn--and that was one of the essential factors leading to the demise of communism and the global spread of democracy. This native Georgian, an offspring of a Houston County farm family, followed in the footsteps of his uncle, Representative Carl Vinson, and legendary Senator Richard B. Russell, both longtime chairmen of their respective armed services committees who also made historic contributions to national security. He certainly did them proud. In carrying on their tradition, he won the admiration of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle and achieved international recognition for helping secure peace and freedom throughout much of the world. And he did it his way--not with conflict and confrontation, but through the exercise of quiet strength, deep knowledge, and thoughtful statesmanship. While he will be most prominently remembered for his work on defense and national security, Senator Nunn did much more. He helped restore fiscal responsibility and efficiency in federal government, fought for land conservation and the environment, attacked drug abuse, and promoted a spirit of citizenship and patriotism in our state and across the country. Again, I rise in strong support of this measure and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the House Resolution 365, which would order the House to go to conference with the Senate on the Agricultural Research bill. The House version of the research bill, HR 2534, which I supported and voted for last year, was a good bill. When we acted on that bill, it did not contain the $1.25 billion food stamp administrative savings contained in the Senate version of the bill. The issue of how these savings should be divvied up, between nutrition program needs, agricultural research, rural development and crop insurance is the only outstanding issue holding up a good bill from becoming law. I urge the House to proceed to conference with the Senate and on this bill, in order to settle the differences over this matter. I trust that the goals of all parties can be addressed in conference, and the traditional strong alliance between the agricultural and nutrition programs can be rekindled. Mr. Speaker, I recently saw first hand the importance of agricultural research at the dedication of the National Environmentally Sound Production Agriculture Laboratory (NESPAL). This new facility is an exciting addition to the other outstanding research and educational facilities located across southwest Georgia. It is important to our state and, in fact, to the whole country. This is one more reason why that area of Georgia is recognized as a center of cutting-edge agricultural research--the kind of research we must have if we are to meet the awesome challenges in the years ahead. NESPAL is a shining example of how business, the academic community, and government are working together to achieve the level of scientific research and development needed to sustain agricultural leadership in an increasingly-competitive world. The Georgia Research Alliance, made up of agribusiness and agricultural and environmental sciences researchers and educators, provided the non-federal funds to match USDA's $3.6 million grant, as well as key leadership support, that gave Georgia the edge in the competition for this facility. This is a great thing for Georgia--but it is just one of many things the Alliance has done to boost research and development in Georgia, including raising $50 million a year to help create new programs and enhance existing ones at Georgia's research universities. The Alliance has played a major part in building the foundation that has made Georgia the number one state in high-tech growth. Agriculture faces challenges of historic magnitude in the years ahead. For one thing, there will be many more people to feed in the world, and much less arable land to grow the food and fiber they will need. Over the next 50 years, the world's population is expected to jump from the current figure of between 5 and 6 billion people to more than 9 billion--not quite double the current population, but close to it. The land available for planting is already decreasing at an alarming rate as developing countries expand and provide housing for growing populations. As farm land disappears, people throughout the world will continue to destroy timber resources and even rain forests as they try to find the last acre on which they can plant. Without adequate scientific advances, these conditions pose an extremely-dire threat to the world's environmental well-being. Another factor is the rise in the standard of living which is occurring throughout much of the world, including Southeast Asia and China, where food consumption is already sharply increasing. As income rises, so does the demand for food and fiber--in terms of both quantity and quality. To meet these demands, the United States will be called upon to increase production three-fold over the next 50 years. If our country is prepared to meet this demand, we have the potential to provide an unprecedented level of prosperity for our farmers and our agricultural economy in general. This is both a responsibility and an opportunity. It is also something that will not be attained easily. A corn producer, for example, will have to increase per-acre yields from 130 bushels to more than 300 bushels to meet this projected demand. This seems like an insurmountable goal. But current research indicates it can be done. Research projects that are underway in several states are routinely producing yields of 200 bushels an acre-- and occasionally yields of more than 300 bushels. U.S. farmers could not have tripled the country's corn production over the past 60 years, as they have done, if it has not been for the research done by both the public and the private sectors. This is an impressive achievement. But we know it isn't the end of the story. Current research suggests that we have the potential to make even more dramatic gains. We are not there yet--but we can, in fact, develop new and improved ways to meet the needs that are projected for the years ahead. Without a sufficient investment in research, we will almost surely fail. But, as long as we keep our diverse research efforts going strong, I have no doubt our farmers and agri-businesses will have the tools they need to seize the exhilarating new opportunities that are opening before them as the new century approaches. Thanks to visionary citizens like those in the Alliance, we are headed in the right direction. One of the things we need to do to fulfill our agricultural potential in an environmentally-progressive way, I believe, is to make greater use of farm materials in the production of industrial goods. We're talking about making non-food products out of renewable, earth- friendly commodities grown on the farm rather than depletable, environmentally troublesome resources like petroleum. The number of trailblazing farm utilization companies that are emerging all over the country is rapidly growing--companies that transform soybeans into ink, canola into hydraulic fluid; cotton gin waste into cleansers; beets into a heart transplant medication; corn and potatoes into lubricants, paint and plastic products ranging from packing material to disposable diapers. Most people know about ethanol, the motor fuel made mostly from corn, which as captured 7 percent of the petroleum market over the past 20 years. But many people are not as aware of the fact that plastic was originally developed from vegetable starches when discovered in the late 1800's. After the turn of the century, it was found that plastic made from petroleum had a big advantage in both quality and cost--and by the end of World War II petro-based plastic had taken over the entire market. Now, veggie-based plastic is making a comeback. It still costs less to make plastic from petroleum. But research has narrowed the gap, and the demand for the biodegradable kind is increasing. In just the past 15 years, the amount of plastic produced in the U.S. from vegetables has climbed from virtually nothing to more than 100 million pounds a year. While this is just a drop in the bucket compared to the 60 billion pounds of petro-plastic produced every year, it represents a secure foothold in the market--a foothold that's growing every year. Cotton is another example of the country's shift back to farm materials. Cotton production went into a tailspin in the 1950's, when synthetic fabrics that require less ironing took over the market. This changed when researchers developed wrinkle-resistant cotton and cotton- blend fabrics--triggering a new boom for cotton in Georgia and much of the South. Not coincidentally, I understand some portions of the NESPAL building's floor is covered by linoleum--a farm-based product made from linseed oil. Two farm utilization companies can be found in the Second Congressional District of Georgia--BioPlus, Incorporated of Ashburn and Scientific Ag Industries of Blakely. Both of these companies are using peanut hulls as their basic resource--buying the hulls for just a few dollars a ton and transforming them into products like cat litter, cleansing absorbents, and activated carbon used in air and water filters that sell for $120 or more a ton. They are marketing the breakthroughs that came from our research universities, from government, and from their own research efforts. While both are still relatively small companies, with 30 employees or less, their potential for spurring commercial growth in rural areas, while helping improve the environment, is tremendous. BioPlus and Scientific Ag are improving the environment by diverting many thousands of tons of peanut hulls from landfills. They are also providing a new source of income for farmers and shellers, And, as they become commercially successful, other industrial investors are sure to follow their lead--creating a chain-reaction of new industrial development. BioPlus is already a success. After operating in the red for about eight years, the company turned the corner two years ago and is now earning a nice annual profit. The firm got substantial start-up advice and assistance from the University of Georgia. More recently, it received federal venture capital to finance the expansion that helped break into the black. Most of all, it did intensive research on its own--acquiring four patents while substantially improving its product and making it more desirable and profitable. Scientific Ag is the 2-year-old creation of a group of Georgia Tech researchers, who plan to put about as much emphasis on doing research on new industrial uses for farm materials as they do in selling the peanut hull-based activated carbon they have perfected and are producing for sale. This new firm, which has also relied on the country's whole spectrum of research programs, is just now getting to the production stage, and I believe its future is also very promising. These companies are fairly representative of this whole movement. They are the end result of the partnership between the public and private sectors--that wide range of research programs that are collectively providing the scientific advances and the business assistance that make our farmers and manufacturers competitive in the world. This is a partnership we must nurture and build upon. It would be catastrophic if we ever let our research infrastructure break down. Inadequate research would be a disaster for our economic future just as it would be for our national defense. If we failed to maintain a lead in military weaponry, you know what would happen--the country's influence would be weakened and our national interests would become more vulnerable throughout the world. If we failed to maintain our economic lead, our position in the world would also be weakened--as would as our standard of living. Overall, this Ag Research Reauthorization bill strengthens the role of government in ag research--not just in terms of authorizing funds, but by ensuring that the inseparable bond between the public and private sectors involved in ag research is reinforced in the funding formulas themselves. When we preserve this partnership, we are preserving something that is historic. Early in the nation's history, the federal government got involved in agriculture by collecting seeds from throughout much of the world and distributing them to farmers so they could experiment with new crops. This activity was managed by the Patent Office, which began to expand its farm research role in the 1840's by publishing new discoveries by our farmers for use by other farmers. In 1887, the Hatch Act greatly expanded the federal government's agricultural research activities by setting up the first experiment stations at a number of colleges in the 13 states. Out of this beginning grew the collaboration that now exists. The private sector is the biggest part of this partnership. But the public contribution is not far behind. According to the National Research Council, private expenditures account for about 57 percent of our agricultural research and government about 43 percent. We need both. The Georgia Research Alliance does a great job of promoting a sound, responsible, innovative, highly-diversified research infrastructure, and I commend them for what you are doing to enhance the quality of life for everyone. They are certainly doing its part to maintain this partnership, and it is up to us in Congress to make sure the federal government continues to contribute its share. Government must stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the business and educational communities to produce the healthiest and most abundant food and fiber supply in the world; achieve our potential in agricultural exports and restore the balance of trade; reduce our dependence on oil imports; protect the environment; and keep the country economically secure for our generation and for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in sending this bill to conference.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, when Dr. Carter Woodson established the first black history observance in 1926, he had several goals in mind. 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, writer and scholar, he wanted to give black people, particularly young people, a better sense of their heritage and a more hopeful vision of their own future and the country's future. These goals are being fulfilled. Americans everywhere recognize that African-Americans have made substantial contributions in the sciences, in exploration, in business, in education, in the arts, in politics and government, in entertainment and sports, in the military, in religion, in citizenship, in every endeavor that has made our country what it is. As we observe Black History Month, I would like to recognize several African-Americans from the area of middle and south Georgia that I have the honor of representing who have achieved greatness--greatness not only because they have been extraordinarily successful in their own lives, but because they have reached out and uplifted many others. One of these Georgians is Apostle Isaiah Revills, a man of great stature physically who is also a giant spiritually. He was born in Moultrie, Georgia, in humble circumstances, 66 years ago, and was called to the ministry at age 21. Since then, he has extended his ministry in tent crusades throughout the United States and has preached in Africa, Israel, Haiti and much of the world. He attracts thousands to his services at the First Albany Deliverance Cathedral in Albany, Georgia. He has been named one of Georgia's 10 most prominent black pastors and has been honored by governors, legislators, mayors and members of Congress. But most of all, his positive, visionary ministry has changed the lives of thousands and thousands of God's children. Brady Keys, Jr., a native of Austin, Texas who attended Colorado State on a football scholarship and went on to become an all-pro defensive back for the Pittsburgh Steelers, is now a businessman in Albany, Georgia who oversees an empire that includes restaurant outlets, hair styling salons, a steel company, real estate, oil and coal interests, and a vending company. He was the first African American to own and operate a franchise company. His firm, The Keys Group Company, is ranked as one of the largest black-owned businesses in the country. He has served in many leadership positions, including membership on President Nixon's Advisory Council on Minority Business Enterprise. His greatest success story, however, is the opportunities he has given to young people. He has hired and trained more than 150,000 youth, giving many their first real job opportunity. John R. Harris was an educator who stayed close to home, serving as a teacher and principal for 40 years in his native Early County Georgia-- 19 years as principal of Early County Middle School in Blakely. He has been an inspiration to thousands of young people and a leader in his community for many years. He has served with the Chamber of Commerce, worked on literacy projects, and served as a gubernatorial appointee on the Georgia Agrirama Development Authority, which has meant so much to his area of Georgia. In 1981, the Early County Board of Education named and dedicated the Middle School Media Center in his honor in recognition of the many contributions he has made to the community. America has produced many heroes. They are not limited to any race, or creed, or national background. We find examples of greatness among all people in this 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, on Friday, February 6, 1998, the House of Representatives and the California Delegation will bid farewell to Ron Dellums, a man who will go down in history as one of the most effective legislators ever sent to Washington. I rise today to pay tribute to this man who has served this country and this body with great distinction, valor, integrity, and honor. He has been a faithful servant on a long journey. When he came to Congress in the early seventies, he came with a mission--to ensure civil rights and social justice for all mankind. His record speaks for itself. From leading the fight against apartheid in South Africa to providing comprehensive solutions to a myriad of problems that this country has faced over the last 27 years. Ron's presence in Congress will surely be missed. His wisdom and hard work have provided a solid foundation on which the Congress continues to build. It has been a pleasure working with him throughout the years. He has all always been fair and equitable in his approach. I am pleased that I have been able to build a lasting professional and social relationship with Ron. He has given me sound advice and has provided a legacy for legislators such as myself to emulate. He has worked tirelessly to provide the people of the Ninth District of California with a sound, reasonable, and effective voice in Washington while providing the entire country with superb statesmanship. His accomplishments are innumerable. I would like to thank Ron for his commitment, wisdom, and guidance to our great nation. His work ethic has been and will continue to be the measure by which all legislators should be judged. As he leaves this body to pursue new interests and endeavors, I want him to know that our prayers are with him and his family. I know that God will continue to bless and keep him as he moves into yet another phase of life.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a strong supporter of this bipartisan bill which would disapprove the President's line-item vetoes of 38 critically-important projects included in the fiscal 1998 Military Construction Appropriations Act. Each of these projects is needed by the military. Each complies with the spending limits established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. And each, if funded, can be started during this current fiscal year. I can speak about one of these projects from first-hand knowledge. Included in the vetoes was $6.8 million to construct an operations and training facility for combat-ready rescue personnel in the 41st Rescue Squadron based at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Georgia, located in the District I represent. The job they do is dangerous and absolutely essential to the safety and well-being of our airmen and civilian populations on the ground. These highly-trained rescue specialists not only serve areas of Georgia and Florida in the general vicinity of the base, it is believed they perform more deployments throughout the world than any other Air Force units. Rescue personnel from Moody are assigned right now to the Persian Gulf. They were transferred to Moody Air Force Base from Patrick Air Force Base during the first six months of last year. Although there was no available building for these units at Moody, the Air Force planned to build one as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, they had to be housed in temporary, rented trailers at a cost of $108,000 a year. These trailers are cramped and totally inadequate for the work these units do, including operations planning and on-going training exercises. If anyone can overcome difficulties such as this, it is the men and women who serve in our armed forces. But it will be a disgrace if we, in Washington, D.C., keep these rescue units stuck in crowded temporary facilities any longer than necessary. We will fail in our responsibility if we send these troops into harm's way without providing them the basic support they need. It will also be more costly. Not only will construction costs go up, we will continue paying the rent--and that is pure waste. I believe the Administration acted in good faith. These are projects they truly believed could wait. But, I also believe the White House was acting on misinformation. Based on the veto message, the White House apparently thought the rescue personnel had not yet been relocated to Moody, that the planning was not far enough along for construction to begin this fiscal year, and that this was not a quality-of-life project. This was incorrect on all counts. The rescue personnel had been transferred months before. Work can begin this year. Without question, providing adequate working conditions for military personnel, and particularly for those involved in life-and death operations, is a quality-of-life issue. In fact, a number of these vetoes were evidently based on mistakes. Moreover, there is no question that each and every one of the vetoed projects is needed for military readiness. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yea'' on this bill and live up to our responsibility to provide our military forces the basic tools they need to carry out the missions that keep our country secure and help protect freedom throughout the world.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the people of the Republic of Guyana for holding multiparty elections on December 15, 1997. By most accounts, based on the observations of international organizations on the day of the elections, the process was free and fair. I congratulate the Guyanese people for their strong belief in the democratic process as shown by an 88 percent voter turnout. I regret that factions in the country called for civil disobedience and that there was mass looting and rioting for many days following the elections. I encourage an audit of the elections by the Caribbean Community, (CARICOM) and call on all parties and opposition leaders to respect the outcome of the audit as the final decision and make a vow to peace and stability in Guyana. I call on the newly elected President Janet Jagan, a native of Chicago, to respect the rule of law and human rights in this fledgling democracy.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask that my colleagues support S. 669, which would provide a legal fix needed by the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site in Plains, Georgia. (Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BISHOP. This Presidential site is located within my congressional district and enjoys bipartisan support. The bill is identical to H.R. 1714, a bill I introduced in the House. I would like to thank the Speaker, the majority leader, minority leader, Committee on Resources, and all of those responsible for helping to bring this bill to the floor today. Public law 100-206, which created the site at the old Plains Depot, requires that the Seaboard Railroad donated land under it. However, since Congress passed that law, it has been discovered that the CSX Railroad, which is the successor to the old Seaboard Railroad, does not have the legal capacity to donate the land under the depot, nor are there remaining heirs of the original land owners available to make the donation. With that being the case, the plan to work on the site cannot proceed. Because of the confusion over identification of the heirs, the depot has not been developed to its full potential as an element of the historic site. For example, the small parking lot is muddy during the wet weather and dusty during the dry weather. The depot is currently served by a substandard septic tank because hookup with the town sewer system has not been possible without a clear title. As a result, the depot has been boarded up and unavailable for visitation despite the fact that, in 1990, close to 40,000 schoolchildren from across the country visited the depot. This measure would amend the law to provide that the land under the depot can be acquired by purchase. This would be effected by the Park Service depositing the appraised value into a court escrow account so that if any heirs ever surfaced, they would receive just compensation. The National Park Service, in its testimony to both the House and Senate Committees on Resources, testified that it supports this change, and the Congressional Budget Office reports that the budgetary impact of this legal fix is negligible. The Senate has acted favorably on this bill by unanimous consent. So I feel confident that swift action by the full House can help this change become law this year. I would like to urge my colleagues to support this important bill, because this particular piece of property is a very, very important ingredient to the full development of the Carter Presidential site in Plains, Georgia.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I too yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement for the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. Last July, when this body considered the House version of the intelligence bill, I stood in this well and commended Chairman Goss and the ranking Democrat, Mr. Dicks, for their efforts in producing a bipartisan measure that enhanced our Nation's intelligence collection, analytical and dissemination capabilities. Mr. Speaker, I echo those remarks today and extend them to the leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Chairman Shelby and Vice-Chairman Kerrey, for their efforts in working with us to produce a conference agreement fully supportive of the men and women who comprise our intelligence community. In the unstable world that we live in today, our Nation's military is called upon to perform more difficult tasks at an ever increasing tempo of operations. Let us not forget that the Department of Defense has regrettably drawn down more than any other Federal agency and the reductions in personnel and dollars continue today. Intelligence acts as a force multiplier, and if we are to continue on a downward path in funding our Nation's armed services, then we need to take every step to ensure that our intelligence capabilities are sufficient to provide policy makers with the information then need to make key decisions affecting national security. The conference report before us today provides the necessary resources to ensure that our intelligence capabilities are sufficient to meet tomorrow's contingencies. Mr. Speaker, debate over the appropriate levels of funding for intelligence activities does not always emphasize the important role of intelligence in achieving a full accounting of members of the armed services who are lost in battle. I want to ensure my colleagues, veterans and the families of the military personnel whose fate remains undetermined that this conference agreement provides the necessary resources to permit the intelligence community to continue to assist in efforts to determine the fate of those listed as missing in action. I have not forgotten you, the Congress has not forgotten you and this legislation will assist in helping to bring you home. Mr. Speaker, let me again thank the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees for their work in fashioning a bill that provides critical support to all facets of our intelligence community. The military and civilian components of our intelligence apparatus are sufficiently provided for in this agreement so that they may continue to assist in providing force protection intelligence to our troops called upon to conduct noncombatant evacuations when the lives of Americans are threatened overseas. Additionally, resources are authorized that permit the intelligence community to sustain its efforts to assist in the collection and analysis of critical intelligence bearing on such difficult and challenging issues as counterterrorism, counternarcotics and counterproliferation. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and in doing so support the men and women of the U.S. intelligence community.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2367, a bill to increase the rates of compensation for veteran's with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain veterans. This bill will strengthen our Nation's efforts to continue to provide veterans with a suitable quality of life. I would like to commend Chairman Stump, Congressman Evans, and the Veteran's Committee for continued dedication, leadership, and hard work on these measures and others affecting the veterans' community. America's veterans have stood as the vanguards of freedom and prosperity. So many of them have put their lives in harm's way so that the guiding principles that we hold so dear remain protected. Just as they fought on the front lines protecting the security of our great Nation, we must lead the charge in the battle for their well being and security. This measure will direct the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs to compute and provide increases in the monthly rates of disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation, effective December 1, 1997. The rates will be increased by the same percentage as Social Security. This increase will help our disabled veterans and their families offset the cost of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. Since the COLA is assumed in the budget resolution baseline, the bill would have no budgetary effect relative to the baseline as modified by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Again, I would like to commend the committee for its dedication, leadership, and vision in passing H.R. 2367. This bill will allow us to continue to fortify this Nation's commitment to provide our veterans with a better quality of life. More importantly, we owe our veterans no less than the dedication and commitment that they have given to protecting the noble ideals and principles of this great Nation. Once more, I express my strong support for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to take a stand on behalf of veterans and support this important bill.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support of H.R. 2493, the Forage Improvement Act of 1997. If you take away all the rhetoric, you will find that this bill has been written in the spirit of compromise and collaboration. There is nothing in it that attempts to roll back any existing laws. There are so many issues that Western cattlemen will still face after this bill passes that will continue to threaten their businesses. Yet, this bill will try to provide some degree of certainty sorely lacking in public land ranching. One of the most important is a requirement of scientific monitoring of resource conditions and trends on grazing allotments. This monitoring will allow the agencies to coordinate with ranchers, to perform the monitoring, and, more importantly, it will be based on regional criteria and protocols. This would help guarantee that the ranchers' business will not be vulnerable to regulations that have no basis in science or that were created in Washington without input from professionals in their own State who understand resource issues at the local level. Currently, all the agriculture across this Nation is having to defend itself against an onslaught of potential restrictions that lack quality data. This bill will help the Western rancher, at least, to defend himself when he is accused of abusing the one thing he is in need of the most on public lands, the forage. It will also provide the cattlemen and agency land managers a valuable management tool to make sound judgments and to better predict the future. Let us dispense with all the cheap shots that are being levied at this bill and let us move forward. Nobody loses with this and the Western cattlemen can attempt to put a little more certainty into their families' lives. What we do here in Washington ought to be based on science, it ought to be based on common sense, and it ought to be user-friendly to the people of this country, and in this instance particularly the ranchers who make their living and their lives by using these public lands for grazing their cattle.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the FY98 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. I am pleased that the report protects the peanut program and that it does not eliminate the subsidy for crop insurance for tobacco. It is difficult for many Americans, and many of my colleagues, to understand the profound impact that farming has on our nation. They live in cities where their food appears in supermarkets, not fully understanding the difficult and laborious efforts that brought the food to them. Spend one day on a peanut farm in my district, and you will know the effort that went into that jar of peanut butter. Family farmers are the backbone of America's agricultural community and the peanut program is one of the vital and necessary safety-nets that help protect that community. The peanut program helps 20,000 American farmers and small businesses compete in the world market, while providing nearly 50,000 American jobs on farms, in processing plants and in related industries. Peanuts are the 12th most valuable crop in the United States and the 4th most valuable oil crop worldwide. In addition, the program provides consumers with an ample supply of one of the safest, most nutritious foods on the market. Because of the program, the United States will be the No. 1 exporter of edible peanuts this year. The peanut program is no-net-cost program and in fact contains a budget deficit reduction assessment of $83 million which would have been lost if the program was eliminated. The program does not reduce consumer prices. Consumer prices have not changed from a year ago, despite the fact farm support prices were cut by 10 percent last year. Consumer prices for peanut butter remain the lowest in the world, at 11 cents a serving, the same price as 1988. Peanut butter prices are lower today than 10 years ago. The environment is benefited by the program because peanut plants are nitrogen-fixing plants which help restore vital nutrients to the soil in rotation with other crops. I have had serious questions about the GAO report that seems to be the main source of criticism to the Peanut Program. I do not believe that this report is entirely accurate or an objective presentation of data. It is really designed to give a skewed appearance. The USDA has commented on the ``lack of objectivity,'' the ``erroneous assumptions,'' and ``lack of thoroughness'' in the report. The GAO has admitted their use of the term ``consumer'' means the ``first buyer'' not the ``final consumer of the product.'' The GAO also interviewed both small and large manufacturers of peanut products and were told that they ``may not pass the costs [savings] directly on to the final consumer'' of peanut products. This report was the basis of the attempt to phase-out the peanut program and quite simply the factual basis for that argument was truly flawed. Those statistics give you the economic impact of the peanut program, but I want to put a human face on this debate. Peanut is concentrated in the rural regions of nine southern states, with these regions being poverty-dense and agriculture-dependent. Peanuts is the largest cash crop and industry in many of these regions. For example, every one of the 31 counties in the 2nd District of Georgia, which I represent, is a peanut producing county. The peanut farms are on average 100 acres, not exactly giant agribusiness. Twenty-nine of those counties have poverty exceeding the national average of 13 percent. It's not just my district. Alabama and Florida have a significant number of peanut producing counties that also have poverty exceeding the national average. The elimination of the Peanut Program would have cost more than 5,000 jobs. We are not only talking about hard working family- farmers whose average income dropped sharply in 1995 & 1996. We are also talking about the families of the farmers, the small businesses that work in the peanut industry and the rural communities that are sustained by peanut farming. Last year we forged an agreement between the Government and our farmers. Investment decisions have been based on a 7-year farm bill. This body should never make a 7-year commitment and attempt to break it after one. If we had broken this agreement we would have had zero credibility with the agricultural community. In addition, the banking community would no longer trust us, because they would have made loans based on the 7-year farm bill. The crop insurance program was designed to protect crop producers from unavoidable risks associated with adverse weather, plant diseases and insect infestations. The crop insurance program was made available to producers of MAJOR crops, including tobacco, for which private insurance is generally not available. The Government underwriting enhances the ability of farmers to obtain credit from commercial lenders who view a crop insurance policy as a form of security on a farm loan. Private insurance availability would not be universal and without federal crop insurance, farmers premiums will more than double. Small farmers couldn't afford that. With the denial of private crop insurance would come the denial of production loans. Farmers would be forced to stop growing tobacco, and many small banks in small towns would be weakened. Simply put, efforts to eliminate multiperil crop insurance for tobacco farmers unfairly harms and discriminates against small tobacco farmers and tobacco communities. In fact, nearly 30 percent of all disaster indemnities go to small, black-operated farms. Larger operations will probably do fine if this amendment is adopted. The average tobacco farm is less than 10 acres. If we use the sponsors of the amendment's figures and say the gross receipts for tobacco average $4,000 per acre, we are only talking about $4,000 a year, gross. Subtract the loan, interest, farmhand salary and inputs needed to grow the tobacco, there is not a lot left. Without any insurance, a single storm could bankrupt a small hard working American farmer, and another generation of people will be out of farming. If you have listened to these arguments and said ``so what, let them grow something else'' do this math: To replace the gross income from 10 acres of tobacco, a farmer would have to plant 74 acres of cotton, 149 acres of corn, 232 acres of soybeans or 288 acres of wheat. On what land is the farmer supposed to plant these crops? Are you going to give him the land or loan him the money to buy the land? Unlikely. Once again, if you want to stop people from growing tobacco, just say so. The USDA and the Administration opposed eliminating this program. According to the Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, abolishing the subsidy will effectively end our ability to provide crop insurance and non-insured assistance payments for tobacco grows. Additionally, he argues that eliminating the subsidy would have a particularly detrimental effect on thousands of small farmers in tobacco producing states, not to mention the toll it would take on the economic stability of many rural communities. Tobacco growers in three States received $77.8 million in indemnities for losses due to back-to-back hurricanes that hit the East Coast last year. These funds helped communities recover from disaster and were paid for in part by the producers themselves. If no crop insurance or disaster assistance were available, these farmers would have been ruined, their farms foreclosed on, not knowing if they would be able to support their families. We all agree that smoking is something we don't want children to do. I myself have introduced H.R. 2034, the Tobacco Use by Minors Deterrence Act. Through various civil penalties and community involvement, it would help address underage tobacco use. What it doesn't do is prevent anyone from making a living or telling them their livelihood is somehow inappropriate. Adults should be able to make the decision to smoke. Tobacco farmers should be able to grow a legal product that sustains many communities in my state and across America. If you think this program is corporate welfare, I invite you to come to my district and meet some of the ``wealthy'' tobacco farmers. I'll show you hard working men and women who earn an honest living. I am very pleased that the Conference Committee has also seen fit to maintain research projects through the University of Georgia which are very critical to the future of the well-being of the constituents I represent, and their livelihood: The Peanut Competitiveness Institute; the Urban Insect Pest Management; the Alliance for Food Protection; and Landscaping for Water Quality. I also am glad that this conference report has included $3,000,000 for the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program instead of $2,000,000 as proposed by the House. This is still not the full authorization amount of $10 million, but we are getting closer because in addition to the funding received through appropriations bills, the program has also received $4,500,000 from the Fund for Rural America. The conference agreement provides $652,197,000 for the Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) instead of $644,259,000 as proposed by the Senate. The crucial areas which are important for my district are the activities under the Rural Housing Assistance Program, the Rural Business-Cooperative Assistance Program and the Rural Utilities Assistance Program. I think this is a good agreement, and I rise to support its swift passage.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of the bill, H.R. 2579.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American and distinguished Ohioan, Carl Burton Stokes. Mr. Stokes rose to prominence in this country at a time when it was unheard of for an African-American male to serve as a big-city Mayor. In his death, Mr. Stokes has left a legacy of accomplishment both personally and professionally. He is the first African-American ever to be elected to all three branches of government--the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Ambassador Stokes' career was both long and distinguished. It began in November, 1962 when he was elected to the Ohio General Assembly. In 1967, Mr. Stokes attracted international attention when he was sworn in as Mayor of the city of Cleveland, a major American city with a population of 810,000. In 1983, he was elected as a Judge of Cleveland Municipal Court, Ohio's largest court. In 1994, President Bill Clinton appointed then-Judge Stokes as his Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of the Seychelles. He served in this position until his death. I encourage all my colleagues to join with me in paying tribute to a leader, a visionary, a role model and above all, a wonderful and warm human being, Carl Burton Stokes.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and great American, Ronald H. Brown or as he was known to millions of people around the world, those who knew him well and those who barely knew him, Ron. This fact alone, is a testament to the great charisma that Ron possessed and indeed, the true mark of a statesman. Ron worked tirelessly as the Secretary of Commerce to forge new ground for U.S. commerce and create new jobs for all Americans. He traveled the world seeking out new opportunities for U.S. businesses. It was on one of these fateful trips that Ron lost his life in an airplane crash on a hill in Bosnia. Ron made the ultimate sacrifice for something he believed in--the United States of America. It is fitting that this building that houses Federal agencies and the site of the recently discovered African slave burial ground, serve as a memorial to this American son who worked so hard and gave so much to make this country an even greater one. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in designating this Federal building the Ronald H. Brown Federal building as a tribute to one of America's hardest working public servants, Ronald H. Brown.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to efforts to prohibit funding for the School of Americas. For those colleagues of mine who may still have concerns about the School of Americas, I draw your attention to the language in the fiscal year 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: first, the Secretary of Defense certifies that training provided by the School of Americas is fully consistent with U.S. training and doctrine, second, the Secretary of State has issued specific guidelines governing selection and screening of candidates for the school, and third, the Secretary of Defense has submitted a report on the training activities of the school. For the past 4\1/2\ years, I have had the honor of representing the area of southwest Georgia where Fort Benning and the School of the Americas are located. I am proud of the school. I believe all Americans should be. It is a program that has provided professional training to thousands of military and civilian police personnel from throughout Latin America--training that includes extensive indoctrination in 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 60,000 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 country's 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 6 years ago. It's true some of the school's trainees have turned out not to be nice people. 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. 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. The military intelligence manuals containing inappropriate material never should have slipped by the school's screening process. There were prepared by the Pentagon years ago for use by military allies, and were adopted at the school as part of the material used in one course. For the most part, the manuals were non-controversial and worthwhile. But they did contain some material that violated U.S. policy, such as the use of psychological stress when conducting interrogations. In a review, the Army recognized this material was not acceptable and eliminated the manuals 6 years ago. I do not defend the manuals, and neither does the Defense Department. They were a mistake. But it was a mistake that was corrected years ago, and it has nothing to do with the current administration of the school. 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. The 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, 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 incumbent 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 preeminent 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.'' The Acting Commander in Chief of U.S. Southern Command, Rear Admiral Doran, has said: ``The School of Americas continues to be a priority in the CINC's regional strategy and it supports the President's National Security Strategy. By training Latin American military, police, and civilians, we remain actively engaged in the area thereby enhancing American security.'' And Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili, has commented: ``SOA remains a critical asset in combatting narcotrafficking in Latin America.'' 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 judgement 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. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support the truth. Support the School of the Americas.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, for the past 4\1/2\ years, I have had the honor of representing the area of southwest Georgia where the School of the Americas is located. I am proud of the school. All Americans should be. It has provided professional training to thousands of military and civilian police personnel from throughout Latin America, including extensive indoctrination in the principles of human rights and representative democracy. For less than $4 million a year, the school promotes democracy, builds stronger relationships with our neighbors, and combats narcotics trafficking. Some handful of the school's graduates have committed terrible crimes, but over 68,000 have been on the front lines of the move toward democracy in Latin America. The school has undergone a series of investigations and studies, and all confirm that it has been a force for good in our hemisphere. I 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 School of the Americas.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great woman and humanitarian, Dr. Betty Shabazz. Her family lost a mother, grandmother, or sister but the world lost a friend and a symbol of inspiration to all of us. In her death, Dr. Shabazz leaves a legacy of dedication to family, a quality that is much praised but little practiced. Her impact will be felt for a period much longer than we realize right now. Her much recognized qualities of perseverance and determination were first publicly recognized after her husband's death on February 21, 1965. Betty Shabazz, left with no source of income to provide for her four young daughters and the twins she was pregnant with, was determined to raise her children and did so alone. Along with taking care of six children, she completed her nursing school education and went on to earn bachelor's, master's and doctorate degrees. Dr. Shabazz lived the dictums of self-reliance, discipline and education as espoused by her husband, Malcolm X. Our prayers are with the family in this hour of grief. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the many contributions Dr. Shabazz has made to our country and to the world.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have the largest peanut-growing district in the country. A lot of people in our area depend upon peanuts. It is the economic foundation of our area. But I have to say that those people came together well before the farm bill last year and put their heads together and worked with people of good will to address the critics of this program, and to address the issues that were raised, such as those raised by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski]. We addressed that in the farm bill last year. We created a no-net- cost program to the taxpayers. It is a market-oriented program, but yet it still provides a safety net for the farmers. We enacted a contract, a 7-year contract, for this farm bill by which we promised that this is what we would operate our farm policy on for 7 years. Our people mortgaged property, they made loans, they bought equipment on time and installments with that in mind. Now we want to pull the rug out from under them and renege on that commitment. Let us defeat this amendment. Let us stand up for the farm bill we passed last year.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I oppose this amendment. It is mean, it is punitive, it is misdirected. It does not attack smoking nor does it attack tobacco companies, as proponents claim, but it does attack small American family farmers trying to protect their land against hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, disease, and drought. We should not force family farmers to lose their homes and their lands because they cannot buy risk insurance. Help American farmers, not foreign farmers. Kill this amendment. It is bad.