Sanford Bishop

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. I want to commend the committee for working in a bipartisan fashion to craft a good bill with many beneficial attributes. As a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee and an ardent supporter of veterans, I want to speak to this section of the bill. I am pleased that the overall bill provides for an increase in funding for veterans programs. Specifically, the bill appropriates $40.359,576 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is $273 million more than the fiscal year 1997 level and over $143 million over the fiscal year 1998 budget request. Over 26 million veterans and their families receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. This increase in appropriations will assist them in their efforts to improve their lives. When our veterans answered the call in faithful service, the Nation promised to write them a check for certain lifetime benefits. It is the solemn duty of Congress to make sure this check does not come back marked ``insufficient funds.'' In tough budgetary times, I want to commend the committee for its efforts to provide our veterans with necessary benefits to sustain a better quality of life. I share the fervor of Congress in balancing the budget, but not one that fails to adequately provide for our veterans. We cannot attack the services we owe to our veterans. They made the supreme sacrifice for our Nation, and we should repay them and their families in kind with adequate benefits, services, and a due continuum of care. I am pleased the bill provides $19,932,997,000 for the veterans benefits. This represents a $333 million increase over fiscal year 1997 for the Veterans Benefits Administration. This will provide our veterans with much needed compensation and pension benefits, education and training benefits, and critical housing assistance. While I applaud the efforts to provide increased funding levels for the Veteran's Benefits Administration, I have some concerns about the level of funding proposed for the Veterans Health Administration. I believe it represents a serious shortfall for veterans health care. This is one of the most important benefits our veterans receive. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that the veterans medical care delivery system is adequately funded to meet the health care needs of our veterans. I know that the budget includes a proposal to permit the VA to retain third party insurance payments and user fee collections. These funds, estimated to be $604 million by the budget agreement, would be used to account for the shortfall in the budget for veterans medical care. I am a strong proponent of this concept and it is my hope that the Congress will enact legislation enabling the VA to do this. However, if this does not occur, a mechanism must be in place to ensure that we do not experience a shortfall in the medical care delivery system for our veterans. I plan to support the Solomon amendment which would incorporate a ``fail-safe'' mechanism to protect much needed funding for veterans medical care. We must remain aware of our responsibility to maintain a system that best meets the changing needs of today's veterans. We are dealing with payment for services rendered. Like any contract the government makes, we must do all within our power to live up to. Dollars may be scarce, but we must make this our priority. With this in mind, it is my hope that we can continue to cooperate in bipartisanship to serve those who have so diligently served us. Members of Congress have always been strong supporters of veteran--not only in word but in deed. Let us continue in that vein today. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1775, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. I also stand before the Members today to commend and congratulate Chairman Goss and the ranking Democratic member, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], for their efforts in producing a bipartisan measure that enhances our Nation's intelligence collection, analytical, and dissemination processes. Mr. Chairman, one only has to look at any one of our Nation's major newspapers on any given day to learn of the unstable and unpredictable world in which we now live. Just last weekend Cambodia erupted in violence as forces loyal to Cambodia's two prime ministers took to the streets of Phnom Penh and engaged in armed clashes. This year alone we have witnessed the spread of civil strife in a number of countries, including Albania, Kenya, Congo, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, to name just a few. When violence erupts in these countries, it is the intelligence community that is called upon to sort out what the threat is to U.S. persons, what the facts are, who the players are, what the likely outcome is, and what ramifications such actions may have for the region and most importantly for our Nation's security. We need to consider whether a shortage of qualified intelligence analysts exists in many regions of the world that have been inflicted with unexpected violence that threatens the stability of that region. H.R. 1775 addresses this problem by providing additional resources to be directed and enhancing and expanding the analytical talent pool throughout the intelligence community. This is especially important to our military personnel who are often called upon to perform noncombatant evacuations of U.S. citizens from regions that are beset with violence. Prior to the military conducting an evacuation, intelligence must be collected and analyzed so as to protect our military forces who perform these important and valuable missions. Additionally, the military has in the past and will in the future be called upon as part of the U.N. peacekeeping force. The Department of Defense needs qualified analysts for force protection, counterterrorism and to assess the plans and intentions of hostile forces. Let us not forget that the military has drawn down more than any other Federal agency, and the reduction in personnel in dollars continues today. Intelligence acts as a force multiplier. And if we are to continue on a downward path in funding our Nation's armed services, which concerns me greatly, then we certainly need to take every step to ensure that our intelligence capabilities are sufficient to provide policymakers with the necessary information they need to make key decisions affecting our national security. In addition to the ever-increasing number of contingencies that await us in the future, old enemies combined with the explosion of technology create new challenges for our intelligence communities. Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, the Korean peninsula, Bosnia, terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction continues to pose a threat to the national security of the United States. The measure before us this afternoon provides funding for our country to aggressively collect intelligence against those important targets. One of the best methods used to collect intelligence on these targets is human intelligence. I am pleased to report that this measure before us enhances the human intelligence collection capabilities throughout our intelligence community. Technology provides us a window into areas that are often hidden and protected against physical intrusion. While technical means of collecting intelligence may shed light on a number of programs, including proliferation activities, human intelligence is one sure-fire way of gathering information on plans and intentions as well as timetables. We must retool our human officer cadre to provide them with the skills and the tools necessary to accomplish their mission in the next century. This bill provides the requisite tools and enhances training to meet these future challenges. Mr. Chairman, let me again thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for their leadership in fashioning a bill that provides critical support to our intelligence community. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and in doing so to support the men and women of the U.S. intelligence community, our military forces and our diplomatic corps around the globe. They are the people who sacrifice often in far-away places that we who live in America can always enjoy a safe, secure, and high quality of life. We owe them and the people of our Nation no less.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to a friend and to a real friend of America's veterans. It is an honor to join my colleagues, especially the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown], in honoring the outgoing Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary, Jesse Brown. He is a true American hero who has served his country with honor and with distinction. Moreover, he has been a real asset to the Clinton administration and his bold leadership in behalf of our Nation's veterans will definitely be missed. Jesse Brown, a native of America's Midwest; a proud marine, a combat veteran, who served bravely in Vietnam and a disabled veteran who has worked for the past three decades to help make sure his fellow veterans receive the full benefits they have earned through their service and their sacrifice. When he was named to the President's Cabinet as Secretary of Veterans Affairs in 1993, veterans everywhere knew that this would be an outstanding appointment, one that would provide strong, effective leadership for the core interests of veterans at the highest level of our national government. And it certainly has been. During his tenure, Secretary Brown has been instrumental in the enactment of a landmark VA health care eligibility reform bill which promises to open up VA health care services to many more veterans and pave the way for improvements throughout the whole VA health care system. Benefits for veterans suffering from exposure to agent orange in Vietnam and to the Persian Gulf illness, full payment of veterans' cost of living adjustments, expanded benefits for surviving spouses of veterans, greater employment protection for Americans who are called up for military service: These are just a few of the initiatives he has helped get enacted into law. As a member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have the privilege of working closely with him, and on these and other legislative goals, he proved to be a real bulldog, the tenacity that you would not normally see in a Cabinet member working in behalf of America's constituency. The partnership between the Secretary and our committee has been exceptionally productive, and throughout our country's history, brave Americans have answered America's call, a great personal sacrifice. Jesse Brown sacrificed much. He served greatly, and he will be greatly missed in the office of veterans affairs. Jesse Brown brings to my mind many, many very, very pleasant memories. He visited the Second Congressional District of Georgia on several occasions, and he touched the hearts of many, many veterans. It was heartwarming and it often brought tears to one's eyes to see him just as at ease with a young active duty military person, or a gold star wife, and he could remember her, having met her 10 or 15 years ago at a veterans service organization convention. Jesse Brown is a very, very special individual. He genuinely loves the work that he has done for veterans. Dr. Benjamin Elijah Mays said that you make your living by what you get, but you make your life by what you give. Secretary Jesse Brown has truly made a life, for he has given so much and he has, indeed, made a life not just for himself, but for all of America's veterans and for that, we are forever grateful. God bless Jesse Brown; God bless America.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, today we will introduce a bill to protect our kids against tobacco use. It is called the Tobacco Use by Minors Deterrence Act and it will 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 provides loss of license to sell by retail outlets for repeated infractions. It requires training of employees, posting of notices, 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. It is a win-win situation. It protects our kids against tobacco but at the same time it protects a legal product with adult choice.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support House Joint Resolution 79, disapproving most-favored-nation status for China. While I am an ardent supporter of free trade, and have voted consistently for continuation of MFN for China, my recent trip there has changed my position on this issue as it provided me with first-hand information on what is really going on in China. I left that country with the overwhelming impression that the Chinese do not care what the United States thinks about their behavior. I have voted on four previous occasions to give China the benefit of the doubt about its intention to open its markets to United States businesses and farmers but the Chinese continue to thumb their noses at the United States. While I would like to support a policy aimed at opening markets and expanding trade, there has to be a level playing field for such a policy to work. Instead, China continues to raise artificial barriers and place high tariffs on American goods and commodities, including United States- grown peanuts. The trade deficit last year alone with China was $40 billion. In addition, China's human rights record, particularly against Tibet and Taiwan, is abysmal. Along with its disregard for human rights, the Chinese strategically ignore numerous international treaties they have signed on arms proliferation. We have seen numerous well documented reports where China is selling highly sophisticated nuclear technology to Iran. Additionally, it continues to transfer advanced ballistic missile technology to Syria and Pakistan. The business community genuinely hopes to influence positive change in China but I did not see that during my visit. There is no American- style democracy, free enterprise, or human rights. Rather, I saw a government that controlled every aspect of life. The Chinese consistently violate workers' rights with many workers laboring under slave-like conditions. American companies that wish to sell their products in China must locate production in that country and share ownership with the Chinese Government. We are currently transferring very sophisticated technology to China who hen turn around and use our technology against us. It's time to send China a message by withholding MFN status for China. I would be derelict in my duty to ignore neglect, which I do not believe is benign neglect. Each year when I voted for MFN for China I did it with the hope that this is the year the Chinese will pay some attention to our concerns more specifically, stop violating the provisions of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and be shamed into improving its human rights record. Sadly, this has not been the case and I have no choice but in clear conscience to vote NO for MFN for China.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Everett amendment and urge my colleagues to support the depot maintenance provisions included in this bill. This amendment is an attempt to circumvent the independent BRAC process and put in place a privatization-in-place plan for two bases ordered closed by the BRAC. If we allow these bases to privatize-in-place rather than close, we will sustain a costly excess capacity within our depot system. There has been a great deal of misinformation circulated about the language in the bill. I'll take this opportunity to make a few points of clarification for the body. This bill does not affect any current private contracts and does not require any work to be moved into the public sector; it does not increase the percentage of depot workload performed by the public sector; it does not require all maintenance on all new weapons systems to be performed in public depots; nor does it preclude the further downsizing of the government owned depots for future BRAC rounds. The bill does allow us to move forward with the intentions and recommendations of the BRAC regarding excess capacity in the depot system. By complying with recommendations of BRAC, it also enables us to save the taxpayer's over $689 million a year. In tough budgetary times, we must act to achieve savings where we can. Additionally, the bill clarifies what operations are included in the ``term depot maintenance'' and offers new flexibility by allowing core workload requirements to be performed by private sector employees in partnership with organic depots. It also restricts the Secretary of Defense's ability to privatize any workload currently performed in depots closed or realigned by BRAC at those depots unless the Secretary certifies that, at the time the contract is signed, each of the services depots is operating at an efficiency level of 80 percent, that the total cost to Government is less than continuing to consolidate the workload in existing depots, and that none of the workload is core. Finally, it directs the Secretary to establish policies to enable public private partnerships at our depots. I urge my colleague to support the provisions of the bill. They provide much needed capabilities and enhance our military readiness while saving the money for the American taxpayer. Please vote no on the Everett amendment:

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 56 and I urge my colleagues to support it. This nonbinding resolution would celebrate the end of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 is the celebrated document which symbolizes the end of slavery in the United States. However, it took over 2 years for news of freedom to reach Texas. It was not until June 19, 1865 when U.S. Gen. Gordon Granger rode into Galveston and announced that the State's 200,000 slaves were free, that slavery was truly abolished throughout all of the United States. In an attempt never to forget this truly historical day, African-Americans who were slaves and their descendants refer to this day as Juneteenth, and they have been celebrating this date annually for over 130 years. This measure would bring public attention to this very meaningful passage in American history. An official recognition of Juneteenth provides an opportunity for all Americans to learn more about the legacy of this country. Equally important, an official recognition of Juneteenth reflects the desire of the American people to acknowledge all aspects of our past, even those painful aspects, and build a unified thus stronger bridge together into our future.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of this resolution, I rise as a proud and strong supporter of this joint resolution which would amend the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. I want to thank Congressman Solomon, the other 284 cosponsors of the bill, and the alliance of groups and individuals for their tireless efforts in support of this bill. As Flag Day approaches, it is appropriate that we take this opportunity to recognize and emphasize the importance of Old Glory. The flag represents something sacred. It may just be a piece of cloth, but it symbolizes the sacrifice of millions of Americans who have served and died defending our country's promise of freedom and opportunity for all. It represents patriotism itself. Those who oppose legal barriers against flag desecration say this is a restraint on freedom of expression. They are wrong. This cause does not diminish the sacred values on which the country is founded, including free expression. By protecting the flag we honor these values, we uphold them, we strengthen them. Many Americans have willingly fought and died defending the flag. By legally protecting this unique symbol, we uphold the respect and honor they are due. In the freest country in the world, this hardly imposes a serious threat on expression. We must pass this resolution so that we can provide our Nation's most precious symbol with the much needed protection it deserves. Forty-nine States have passed resolutions calling upon us to pass this amendment, overwhelming public opinion is calling upon us to pass this amendment. It is time we answer these calls by passing this amendment. Moreover, it is time we send a message to those who would disrespect and dishonor Old Glory. Again, I want to express my strong support for this resolution and strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the Congressional Black Caucus for crafting an alternative budget to ensure that all Americans share the burden of balancing the budget. Year after year the caucus steps up to produce an alternative budget, one that is consistent with the values of America. This plan reflects the compassion of the caucus and, as the conscience of the Congress, the caucus continues to be a voice for the voiceless and power for the powerless. More importantly, the caucus remains at the forefront fighting for issues affecting our country's most vulnerable citizens. This alternative budget has many good points. It makes a firm commitment to our Nation's domestic priorities. It provides funding for a $1,500 HOPE scholarship. It protects the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid. It includes full funding of health insurance for our Nation's 10 million uninsured children. It eliminates the 3-month COLA delay for Federal retirees and expresses the caucus' commitment to increased funding for veterans and crime prevention programs to move our young people through the difficult years of childhood and adolescence to a positive and promising future. It ensures funding for adequate housing for the most needy. While I support the noble goals of this alternative budget, I must respectfully disagree with the cuts to defense. As a Member who represents three military bases where thousands of military and civilian workers proudly carry out the mission of our country's national defense, I cannot vote to cut another $189.9 billion from defense. I must act in the best interest of my constituents. I must act in the best interest of our national security. Because I believe that defense has already cut the fat and cut the muscle needed to assure a strong defense, I cannot cut the bone at the expense of our service members and their families. Yet this CBC budget is compelling. It is compassionate, and it is courageous. I congratulate our Chair, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], and I congratulate the architect of this budget, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson], and the other members of the CBC for their hard work. And I congratulate their staffs. While I cannot, because of the needs of my district, vote for it, Mr. Chairman, I cannot in good conscience vote against it. It is, indeed, a worthy alternative.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 84, the balanced budget resolution for 1998. This is an historic agreement which reflects a spirit of bipartisanship and a spirit of cooperation. Today, we have an opportunity to pass a resolution which strikes a workable balance between keeping the budget balanced and sustaining and investing in our most essential domestic and defense priorities. This bill attempts to balance the budget in a way that is fiscally sound and fair. It represents a commonsense approach, a middle ground that all sides should be able to support. Once we enact this agreement, we can begin the implementation of a balanced budget plan that will put money back into the pockets of working Americans. Like all of my colleagues, I am committed to providing a higher better quality of life for my constituents. This means supporting policies for stimulating job growth, a stronger, a more diversified economy, a better educated population, safe and secure communities that are free from crime and drugs, a clean environment, affordable health care, and a strong national defense, but all within the context of a balanced budget. The resolution up for consideration today establishes a good framework for achieving these goals. I want to commend both parties for their diligent work in crafting an agreement which moves toward eliminating deficits, expands health care coverage for our most vulnerable citizens, keeps Medicaid and Medicare solvent while preserving essential care, intensifies our efforts to protect the environment, provides persons with the necessary tools to move from welfare to work, gives a boost to education and provides equitable tax relief, including capital gains and inheritance tax reductions, for the American people and it preserves a strong defense, which has already been cut enough. I doubt if anyone regards this bill as perfect. With a measure this far-reaching, there is no way to reach perfection. From everyone's point of view, there are provisions in the bill that I do not like and have fought against all along, including those to increase the retirement share made by civil service workers and that assume that cost-of-living adjustments for veterans compensation will be rounded down to the nearest whole dollar. I do not like these. Our veterans and our civil service workers are carrying their share of the budget reduction burden already and will continue to try to change provisions such as these. Additionally, I will work with my coalition colleagues for enforcement measures to ensure that the deficit indeed remains on the glide path to balance in the next 5 years. It is extremely important that we do this so that we can reach our deficit targets each year. But on balance, Mr. Speaker, this agreement may be our last best hope to finally achieve a balanced budget and save our country from an economic calamity, which is sure to occur if budget deficits and the national debt continue to run amuck. Our choice is clear, our mandate strong. Pass this resolution.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate National Peace Officers' Memorial Day and pay tribute to our fallen brothers and sisters. I would especially like to pay tribute to the seven officers in Georgia who made the ultimate sacrifice--giving their lives in the line of duty during the last year. Officers Dennis Cader, Richard Cash, Brett Dickey, George Hester, Victor Pimentel, Durwin Potts, and Scott Smith served their communities with courage and valor while protecting the women and men of Georgia. Every day the law enforcement community stands on the front line ready to serve and protect you and me. It is only fitting that we pay tribute to them today. We in Congress should support all initiatives that take violent criminals and those who pose a threat off the street. Additionally, the American people should show support and respect for these brave frontline officers. All too often we take law enforcement officers and the job they do for granted. However, much of our peace of mind as we walk our streets is a direct result of the work they do to protect us. With this in mind, I strongly encourage more community law enforcement partnerships. Officers from all across the country traveled to Washington, DC this week to celebrate National Police Week, which culminates with National Peace Officers' Memorial Day. Hundreds of law enforcement personnel and family members of the fallen officers stood on the west front of the Capitol today to bid a final farewell to their comrades who fell in the last year. They will also stand at the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial tomorrow evening to participate in a candlelight vigil to honor and celebrate the lives of these brave officers. We thank the families who stood and continue to stand by their loved ones while they put their lives on the line for us. Our prayers are with you and we join with you to celebrate their great work. Our Nation is greatly enriched by the contributions of these great men and women.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank Ms. Kaptur and Mrs. Roukema for their considerable hard work and perseverance in bringing this amendment to the floor today. I rise to express my strong support for this amendment which would provide a $76 million supplemental appropriation for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). The passage of this amendment will ensure that over 180,000 pregnant women, infants and children across the country will not be terminated from participation in the WIC program. As a member of the House Agriculture panel which has authorizing jurisdiction over nutrition, I have been a longtime supporter of the WIC program. Numerous studies, including one by the GAO, have reported that a dollar spent on WIC saves as much as $3.54. Because of the preventative nature of the WIC program, these savings are primarily Medicaid savings. Simply put, this supplemental appropriation amendment is just too important to the continued health of far too many disadvantaged women and the infants and children they care for. Again, I rise in support of this amendment and encourage my colleagues to join me in doing likewise.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, the Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act before us today provides an opportunity to restore a small amount of critically needed balance to the Endangered Species Act. The Psalmist raises the question: What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? . . . For Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under this feet. All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. . . . This bill gives this body an opportunity to clearly state what a majority of my constituents believe: the preservation of human life should take priority over the preservation of endangered species. In July 1994, the Flint River in my State of Georgia flooded. Several lives and substantial property, including cropland, were lost in that flood. If a local flood control official in Georgia needs the flexibility to prepare for a future flood on the Flint River, I want that official to have the flexibility needed to do what it takes. I do not want the Endangered Species Act to stand in the way of protecting the lives and property of the people I represent. It is only common sense that any major flood is devastating to every plant and animal in its path. Let's not be fooled into believing that an otherwise preventable flood will not further endanger the very plants and animals the Endangered Species Act was designed to protect.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1092, a bill to extend the VA's authority to enter into enhanced use leases; rename the U.S. Court of Veterans' Appeals the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and codify the fiscal year 1997 VA compensation rates to reflect cost-of-living adjustments effective December 1, 1996. Additionally, I support H.R. 1090, a bill to allow veterans to appeal certain claims which may have been erroneously denied by the VA. Both of these bills will assist us with our efforts to provide a suitable quality of life for our Nation's veterans. I want to commend Chairman Stump, Congressman Evans, and the Veterans Committee for continued leadership and hard work on these measures and others affecting the veterans community. America owes its freedom and prosperity to its veterans. So many of them put their lives on the line so that the guiding principles we hold so dear remain protected. Just as they fought on the front lines protecting the security of our great Nation, we must be on the front lines fighting for their well-being and security. The two veterans bills on the floor today will assist us in this endeavor. H.R. 1092 will extend the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into enhanced use leases for underutilized VA property. The public-private partnerships created as a result of these leases has proven to be worthwhile. Enhanced use leasing authority has led to the development of a number of beneficial projects: child care centers, parking facilities, and VA office space. These projects and others currently in the development stage greatly contribute to the strength of the VA and its mission. Also, additional revenue received from these leases is used for critical medical care services and nursing homes. I also support provisions of the bill renaming the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. Because of its name, many veterans and attorneys have been highly confused about the jurisdiction and authority of this body. The name change established by the bill will prove beneficial by clarifying that this is an independent judicial body and not an administrative tribunal within the Department of Veterans Affairs. Additionally, the bill codifies fiscal year 1997 VA compensation rates to reflect cost-of-living adjustments effective December 1, 1996. This is important so that we can protect veterans compensation by locking in rates established by the adjustment. Again, I want to commend the committee for passing H.R. 1090. This bill would make an important change by allowing veterans to appeal decisions by the Board of Veterans Appeals for clear and unmistakable errors. The veterans' community has been pointing out for some time that the restrictions against appealing VA decisions for clear and unmistakable error are grossly unfair. This bill is very important because it gives veterans an adequate recourse when there has been grave error by the VA. More importantly, it ensures that if the VA makes an error, veterans will not be denied compensation benefits. H.R. 1092 and H.R. 1090 are tools to be used in the tireless fight on behalf of the veterans community. Again, I express my support and thank the Veterans Committee for its work. I urge my colleagues to support these bills.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the work and character of Arnold Aronson. His distinguished career in civil rights spans nearly 60 years. Mr. Aronson is most noted for being one of the founders of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in 1950 and his draft of the report ``To Secure these Rights.'' This report was later issued by President Truman's Citizens Committee on Civil Rights in 1947 and eventually became the basis for the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Mr. Aronson was also one of the ten organizers and leaders of the historic 1963 march on Washington. Throughout his career, Aronson has worked with many organizations spanning the entire spectrum of the civil rights movement. He was program director of the National Jewish Community Relations Council and founder and president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. He is also noted for his attempts to rally Jewish and black communities in the interest of racial tolerance. I salute the dedication and contributions of Arnold Aronson to civil rights.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, the EPA's proposed cluster rule for the pulp and paper industry is something we in Congress need to take a look at. First proposed in 1993, it was the first time the EPA had ever attempted to cluster an air and a water rule for the same industry. The theory was that regulatory synergies could be achieved and a duplication cold be avoided if the regulatory decisions were made together. It was a good idea, and even the industry supports the concept. Unfortunately, however, as is too often the case, theory and practice did not coincide. Instead of providing regulatory synergy, the cluster rule simply burdened industry and its workers with separate rules with nearly identical compliance deadlines. Some requirements of one rule would have created compliance problems with the other rule. And the rule would have had a devastating impact on the industry. Over 100,000 jobs would have been affected by the rule, and the compliance costs would have exceeded $11 billion. The pulp and paper industry is very important to my district and my State of Georgia. According to the information compiled by the American Forest & Paper Association, the pulp and paper industry employ 33,000 people in Georgia, with another 38,000 workers in the forestry, lumber, and wood products sectors. Total payroll for this combined industry in Georgia is over $2 billion. Over 200 facilities in Georgia manufacture 7 million tons of paper and paperboard annually, with a value of $7\1/ 2\ billion. I am pleased to report that since 1993, the industry and EPA have worked closely together to gather new information to fill data gaps in the Agency's information profile for the industry. The industry proposed an alternative compliance scheme which has comparable environmental benefits as the one proposed by EPA but at far less cost. EPA also worked closely with other stakeholders in the rulemaking process and in July of this year, published in the Federal Register a new notice for the cluster rule. In this notice, EPA acknowledges its receipt of the industry's alternative and outlines the choices it is facing. In August, I joined my colleagues in Georgia in encouraging EPA to adopt option A in the July notice. We also encouraged EPA to allow more flexibility in the best management practices [EMP's] provision and to modify the incentives program to make it truly meaningful. I remain cautiously optimistic that EPA will do the right thing. I thank the EPA for its willingness to work with the industry, their workers, and other stakeholders, in making changes to the rulemaking procedure. If successful, the outcome of the cluster rule could serve as a model for future regulatory reform efforts.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the dedication and hard work of U.S. Representative Harold Ford. Harold Ford is the first and only African-American Tennessean elected to the House of Representatives. Prior to his election to Congress, Mr. Ford, served two terms in the Tennessee State legislature. Representative Ford is noted for his work on behalf of his constituency. Partly, as a result of his efforts, Tennessee's Ninth District receives more than its fair share of Federal contracts. Mr. Ford has also held hundreds of town meetings to ascertain the views of his constituents. Representative Ford is a proven champion of the poor. In Mr. Ford's pivotal role on the Committee on Ways and Means, he advanced the empowerment zones and enterprise communities provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The measure created six urban and three rural empowerment zones. He has sponsored and cosponsored major legislation on healthcare reform, taxation and welfare reform. Congressman Ford's work on welfare reform, in particular is widely known. During the 103d Congress, Mr. Ford held 20 hearings on President Bill Clinton's welfare reform measure. As ranking Democrat, Congressman Ford fought Republican efforts to pass a welfare reform bill that would weaken provisions that hurt children. Mr. Ford has been relentless in his efforts to improve the quality of life for Americans. A recent report by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Memphis stated that the Tennessee JOBSWORK program initiated by Representative Ford has been successful at moving welfare recipients into the workforce. In addition, the bureau reported an average increase in earnings of 163 percent compared with earnings before participation in the program. Mr. Ford is also active in social and community activities in Memphis and throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, Representative Ford's bold leadership will be missed. I wish Mr. Ford success in his future endeavors.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the work and character of Congressman Cleo Fields. He is a champion of education, small businesses and consumers. His dedication to public service began at an early age. At 24, Congressman Fields became the youngest State senator in Louisiana history. As a legislator, he was a leader against illicit drug use, promoted school uniforms and created an Inner City Economic Development Program. His outstanding record as a State senator resulted in his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1992. Again, as the youngest member of the 103d Congress and a freshman, Fields' aptitude and abilities were recognized. Hence, Fields was able to win seats on the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the House Committee on Small Business. Representative Fields legislative initiatives demonstrate his commitment to education, small businesses and consumers. Fields is most noted for his introduction of the Education Trust Fund Act of 1995, which was designed to increase funding for teacher salaries, school infrastructure, and educational supplies. His creation of a Congressional classroom for elementary and secondary school students has also received a great amount of support. The classroom was initiated to develop student's understanding of the legislative process through experience and mock legislative sessions. Fields also organized the first-ever Education Caucus and currently services as its chairman. Representative Fields initiated other legislation to address the concerns of the people of Louisiana, including the Tax Free Savings and Investment Income Act, to encourage savings and investments; the Fourth Congressional District Economic Summit; and programs to secure the future of the SBA's 8(a) Minority Business Development Program. In addition to the foregoing, Fields has served as chairman of both the Congressional Black Caucus Task Force on Redistricting and the Congressional Black Caucus Task Force on Church Burnings. I applaud Congressman Fields for his newest endeavors which include working to reelect President Bill Clinton and working to help Democrats regain control of Congress. I also commend him for starting the new grass roots organization called Volunteers Organized to Encourage Registration. This is an organization committed to educating our young people about the importance of being involved in the political process and voting. I salute the dedication and hard work of Cleo. I know the future holds great things for him. I thank him for his service and wish his family and him the best in the years ahead.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sustain President Bill Clinton's veto of H.R. 1833, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. The bill makes it a crime to perform a so-called partial-birth abortion unless the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. Under the legislation, physicians who perform these abortions are subject to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, fines, or both. The bill also establishes a civil cause of action for damages against the doctor who performs the procedure. I am against abortion as a method of birth control and certainly against elective late-term abortions except where necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. Today, I vote to sustain the President's veto because H.R. 1833 would seriously infringe upon a family's right to choose what is best for them. In addition, it would seriously interfere with a physician's attempt to protect a woman's health or future reproductive capacity. This rare procedure is primarily used in cases of desired pregnancies gone tragically wrong; when a family learns late in pregnancy of severe fetal anomalies or of a medical condition that threatens the woman's life or health. The American Public Health Association, the American Medical Women's Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, all organizations dedicated to improving women's health care, oppose the measure. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, this type of procedure is ``done primarily when the abnormalities of the fetus are so extreme that the independent life is not possible or when the fetus has died in utero.'' They further explain that the medical problems which a woman could develop that might require interruption of pregnancy during the third trimester include rare maternal problems that could threaten the life and/or health of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continued such as severe heart disease, malignancies, kidney failure, or severe toxemia. I simply cannot tell a mother that she must risk her life carrying a fetus that the medical community has determined would not live. That should be a family decision best left to the family and their God. In these situations, in which a family must make such a difficult decision, the ability to choose this procedure must be protected. This measure outlaws a valid medical procedure. Other methods of late-term abortion may be more dangerous to the health or life of the woman. Moreover, it compromises the patient-physician relationship. Because it bans one of the safest, least invasive methods available later in pregnancy, physicians would be compelled to balance the health of their patients against the possibility of facing Federal criminal charges. In short, I cannot vote to override the President's veto because it fails to protect women and families in such dire circumstances and because it treats doctors who perform the procedures as criminals. The life exception in the bill only covers cases in which the doctor believes that the woman will die. It fails to cover cases where, absent the procedure, serious physical harm is very likely to occur. I would support H.R. 1833 if it were amended to add an exception for serious health consequences. I urge my colleagues to vote to sustain the President's veto.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3734, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation/Welfare Reform Act. We must set forth a vision for our country. We want an America that gives all Americans the chance to live out their dreams and achieve their God-given potential. We want an America that is still the world's strongest force for peace and freedom. And we want an America that comes together around our enduring values instead of drifting apart. For the past 4 years, President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress have worked for a responsible, commonsense agenda to revitalize core American values: work, personal responsibility, opportunity, and a stronger family and community life for everyone. We are on the right track, and we must make sure the country continues moving toward an economically secure, militarily strong, more compassionate, and a more fiscally responsible future. Our country is at a historic crossroads. We can go to the left and return to an irresponsible non-sense agenda that is antiwork, antiopportuntiy, antifamily and that breeds insecurity, dependency, and despair. We can go to the right and abruptly and cynically abandon our commitment to a safety net for children, seniors, and the disabled. Or we can go straight ahead, following the leadership of President Clinton--each of us, individually and all of us collectively as a Nation--in the direction of prudence and responsibility. Welfare reform is a monumental example. While there are those who fear that going forward to implement welfare reform will destroy the safety net of security for poor children, seniors, and the disabled, I believe that not to go forward would cause us to aimlessly drift farther away from the core American values of work, personal responsibility, opportunity, stronger families and communities. By going forward with welfare reform, we are ridding ourselves of a system that does not conform to our Nation's guiding principles and replacing it with a new system which will provide the essential tools recipients need to move from welfare to work. This is the beginning of a process that can transform welfare into an opportunity rather than a way of life. It is about giving a hand-up rather than a hand-out. It is about requiring and rewarding work while providing access to job skills and expanded job opportunities. It is about providing essential child care and health care to give working families a sense of security about the well-being of their children. It is about cracking down on deadbeat parents and those who abuse the system--but not on innocent children. It is about creating a welfare system that makes sense. This means a system that maintains a fair, efficient, and responsible safety net for individuals and families in critical need and one which empowers people to move out of the shadows of poverty and into a bright new day of productivity and hope. As one who has worked on welfare reform for many years--first in the Georgia General Assembly, where I helped write the PEACH (Positive Employment and Community Help) program, our State's innovative welfare- to-work plan. And now in Congress--I know how challenging changing the status quo can be. The proposals originally pushed by Republicans were too weak on work and too tough on children and families. They would have block granted and drastically underfunded the food stamp and school lunch programs; denied Medicaid to our most vulnerable citizens; and would have failed to provide adequate funding for work programs and child care. With the strong leadership and perseverance of President Clinton and congressional Democrats, we fought them. And we succeeded. When faced with the realization that Americans want a system that promotes work and responsibility but not the mean-spirited proposals they were pushing, the Republicans conceded. The law we finally enacted is certainly not perfect. It goes too far in cutting nutritional assistance and cuts off aid to legal immigrants who have worked hard and paid taxes. It has its shortcomings and uncertainties. These we must resolve and correct. I plan to work with the President and the Members of this body to do just that. Passing this legislation is not enough. We must now make sure all Americans have the skills they need to get jobs. We must now make sure that jobs are available so all Americans can go to work. We must now make sure that all Americans are empowered with the tools they need to help themselves to realize their dreams and achieve their God-given potential. We must ensure that the American value of personal responsibility as embodied in this bill will not be a stumbling block but a stepping-stone to a better quality of life for all Americans. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, July 19 is the 20th anniversary of the U.S. District Court decision known as Cherry versus Mathews, the historic ruling that opened the door to full and equal citizenship for disabled citizens. The plaintiff, Dr. James L. Cherry, is a Georgian. His landmark suit led to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's regulation under section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act assuring disabled citizens reasonable access to public programs and facilities. This regulation became the model for the Americans with Disability Act, which expanded protection from discrimination to all persons with disabilities. It was also Dr. Cherry who first proposed Georgia's voting accessibility law, on which a similar Federal statute is patterned. Twenty years ago, many disabled citizens could not use public transportation; or go to most schools and colleges; or have access to many Government parks and buildings and other services; or even have access to voting booths. This changed following the decision by Judge John Lewis Smith. It changed almost overnight. Suddenly, the country's promise of equal opportunity became a reality for millions of disabled Americans. It was one of the great moments in America's march toward justice and opportunity for all. As we observe the 20th anniversary of Cherry versus Mathews, I urge all Americans to rededicate themselves to the principle of equality of opportunity which is one of the cornerstones of the country's greatness.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, it is a real sad time for me to have to reflect on the life of Bill Emerson, but Bill is the kind of person I think that I will never, ever forget. If there has ever been a person who represents what is stated in the 25th chapter of Matthew: When I was hungry, you gave me meat. When I was thirsty, you gave me drink. When I was naked, you gave me clothing. When I was in prison, you came unto me. When I was sick, you ministered to me. Bill Emerson was such a person. Bill Emerson was bipartisan. He was a leader. He was my subcommittee chairman on the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture. He gave me the assurances that everything would be all right when we were worried about those people that were hungry and what would happen to them in this Congress. 1600 He gave me the assurance that it would be OK, and I am happy that Bill Emerson was there. I am happy that Bill Emerson was subcommittee chairman, and I am just happy to have been able to call Bill Emerson my friend and my leader.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in an America where young people were taught the love of God and country, values and character and integrity, to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, and reverent; an America where hats were removed when a funeral procession came down the street and all movement ceased; where a church ground was sacred and where the sanctuary was treated with reverence. My, how America has changed. Almost 2,000 years ago Jesus said, upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Well, I am happy to say that that was true then and it is true now. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here tonight to join in one voice, the voice of brotherhood, to say that in this House, in this country, people of goodwill all across this Nation are expressing today and tonight their outrage at what has happened, but more importantly, we are exerting our prayers all across this Nation for those poor souls who are responsible for this dastardly conduct. I support my colleagues and this resolution, and God bless America.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Durbin amendment. I feel that this amendment is unfair, it is discriminatory, and it will create a bureaucratic nightmare. I represent tobacco growers. I represent tobacco warehouses, and I represent the largest cigarette manufacturing plant in the country. What I see this debate about is not whether to outlaw tobacco, which perhaps would be more of an appropriate debate, not whether to smoke or not to smoke, which perhaps would be an appropriate debate, but here we are talking about taking away crop insurance and the advice of extension agents from people who are scratching out a living from the soil in the hardest of possible ways to just to make ends meet. It is not right, it is not fair, and I just think that we ought not be doing that. What we are talking about here are jobs. What we are talking about are families. We are talking about college tuition. We are talking about hospital bills, doctor bills. We are talking about health insurance even, derived from the hard work that these families scratch out from the soil. I had the good fortune to marry a young lady who grew up on a tobacco farm, and we spent hours and hours talking about what it was like growing up on that tobacco farm when her father would have to go and mortgage the land to plant his crop and how when the crop came in and after they got through curing it and they got through selling it, how he would go back to the bank, if they had a good year, and pay off the mortgage. And she talked about how many years they would have to go back and renew that mortgage and hope that they could make a better crop the next year, and in the meantime the land did not get foreclosed on. Her father always said, ``I hope that life for our children won't be as bad on this tobacco farm as it has been for me.'' The advent of crop insurance improved that lot for that tobacco farm in North Carolina. I believe that we ought not to, as long as this product is legal, discriminate, be unfair and create a nightmare, as this amendment would do. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am appalled. I believe that this amendment is clearly nothing more than a fraud. Proponents would have us to believe that it will lower the cost of peanuts, peanut products to the consumer. That could not be farther from the truth, as has already been stated. Not one single manufacturer anywhere in this country has agreed to lower the cost of a candy bar, a jar of peanut butter or a bag of salted peanuts one red cent if this amendment passes. Instead the amendment would put a ceiling on what a farmer who has weathered the storms, the droughts and all of the other risks of growing to what that farmer can get for his product after he has worked so hard. It seems to me what we are doing here is artificially, as the gentlewoman from New York pointed out, artificially fixing the price. If this is not a violation of antitrust laws, what is? No matter what the market price might be, this amendment limits the amount of profit that a poor farmer in Georgia could make on his peanuts. This is price- fixing, pure and simple. Now, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] and I offered earlier last year the national peanut reform bill because the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from Texas and many other places have pointed out that they had some problems with the way that the peanut program was structured. As a consequence, we passed a reform bill which was folded into the new farm bill, a reformed peanut program. As a consequence, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, we achieved a program that has no net cost to the Government, that is market oriented, but at the same time provides a safety net for our farmers. That is all that it does. What this amendment will do is take away that safety net, and the minimum profit that a farmer might get because the market has driven the price up will be taken away, and that windfall will be placed in the hands of those people who manufacture that candy bar, who manufacture that jar of peanut butter and who manufacture that bag of salted peanuts. Those are the ones that will get the benefit of that. The poor farmer is going to suffer, and we will see fewer and fewer family farms. Now, the attack has been made on the Secretary. The Secretary is accused of setting the national pound quotage too low; as a result, artificially driving up the price because of a reduction in supply. But I want to point out, as someone has already said, that in 1995, last year, the national poundage quota was 937,010 tons. This year it is almost 200,000 tons more. That does not sound like anything that is going to reduce the supply. The supply is going to increase. And what is consumption? Consumption is what the market will bear. This amendment is a fraud, it should be defeated, it is an attack on family farmers, and particularly peanut farmers. I represent the largest peanut farming district in the country. Our farmers work hard, and they suffer great risk to try to turn a profit. We, at great sacrifice, passed a bill, the farm bill, that would address some of the concerns that the critics have had although we felt that they were not well taken. Nevertheless, we compromised, and we have taken a great deal of profit away from our farmers already, reducing the price from $678 a ton to $610 per ton. That is a significant decrease in what our farmers can make on their hard labor and the risk they take. I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment, protect family farms, protect all of what we have tried to do in farming, our commodity programs and our farm programs, in this 1996 farm bill. This peanut program has been reformed, we have fixed it, and we do not need to break it as this amendment would do. It is clearly a fraud, and I urge my colleagues to defeat it.