Sanford Bishop

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, the School of the Americas is a strong and effective advocate of human rights and representative government in Latin America. This is the finding of an independent study retained by the Army last year. It is my own finding, as well. Fort Benning is in my district. I have visited the school many times, studied the curriculum, talked often to the students and faculty, examined all the evidence. Critics make a lot of charges but they offer not one shred of real evidence to substantiate their false and malicious accusations. And they ignore all evidence to the contrary, including the fact that an overwhelming majority of the graduates have worked for democracy when they returned home. Anyone who studies the facts objectively will reach the same conclusion as I have and the study has--that the School of the Americas is effectively promoting human rights and should continue to fulfill its mission to help representative government take hold in Latin America. I oppose the Kennedy amendment. I urge my colleagues in this House to reject this amendment.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the gentleman that it is not unanimous in this body either.

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

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2723, the Work and Family Integration Act.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, history will remember Ron Brown as one of the most dynamic, creative and brilliant leaders to ever serve in a Presidential Cabinet. These characteristics stand out strong and clear in the many articles reviewing his career that were published after the plane crash that took his life and the lives of the staff Members and business leaders accompanying him on that fatal trip to the former Yugoslavia. One national magazine, Jet, featured a number of photographs of Ron Brown at work. They showed Ron Brown in China, in Japan, in South Africa, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia, in Israel, in Gaza, in Russia, in Germany, in Chile, in Indonesia, and in Bosnia, just hours before the crash on the mountain top. He seemed to be everywhere during those few busy years he served as Secretary of Commerce, the first African-American to hold that office, even coming to the Second District of Georgia to deliver the commencement address at Albany State College. In a span of less than 3 years, he made 15 trade missions to more than 25 countries. These trips produced a record 80 billion dollars' worth of new business contracts for U.S. made goods and services. His work in foreign trade led to a 26-percent increase in U.S. exports. But he also worked to enhance minority business enterprise in America and abroad. Vice President Gore called him the greatest Commerce Secretary in history. But it was not just political allies who recognized his extraordinary ability. Senator Dole described him as a tireless advocate for American business and a gifted leader. Born in Washington, DC, and raised in Harlem, Ron Brown was gifted at everything he did, as a student at Middlebury College and St. John's University, as an Army officer in Germany and Korea, as an official and social worker with the National Urban League, as a senatorial aide and chief counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, as an attorney in a leading law firm, and as Secretary of Commerce, and as a friend. Many of the articles about Ron Brown's career referred to him as a trailblazer. This was certainly true, and the trails he blazed brought jobs and a more secure economy for all Americans. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, let me come down to support the de la Garza amendment, especially because of the need we have for more rural development. Many of us who represent farm communities, communities that are filled with production agriculture, find that in order for our family farms to survive and for our communities to be strong economically, that there have to be some other value-added facilities there, some other employers and some other infrastructure to broaden that tax base. We have found that it has worked very well. We have had in the past some very good rural development projects to support some new industry that helps us to diversify. We have had poultry facilities that have come into our area, but they were helped by rural development grants to help the infrastructure, the water, the sewers, the electrification, road widenings, traffic signals. These kinds of things are very, very important in rural areas. To create, to have an industry come in that creates 1,500 jobs at one time is a real boost to a rural community and to its economy. Certainly, we are very, very concerned about the water provisions. Having clean water is important to our district. My district has some of the poorest counties anywhere in the country, and because of that it means a great deal for a county like Whitman County, GA, that had no running water, to be able to get a grant to help them serve their citizens with running water. These are the kinds of basic necessities that allow for an improved quality of life in rural Georgia and in rural America. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is imperative that if we are going to strengthen America, if we are going to strengthen America's rural communities, that we have to do it through rural community development. I think this amendment does it. I would urge my colleagues in the House to please support this amendment. It enhances the bill in a very, very positive way. I hope that it will become law and improve the quality of life for all Americans, especially in our rural areas.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend you along with my colleague for sponsoring this special order today. As we look back on the month of February, as we celebrate Black History Month, I certainly would like to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], for his many years of service in leading this caucus as we celebrate Black History Month. Like many of our colleagues, I have been fulfilling requests to talk about black history during the past month at schools and colleges, churches and civic organizations throughout my area of middle and south Georgia. It is an honor to have an opportunity to participate. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the 70-year-old observance of Black History Month has made a big difference in our understanding of history. It has helped teach us about how our country's unique diversity has enriched and strengthened us as a people and a nation. Evidence of this statement can be found in the far-reaching contributions made by African Americans in science and medicine, art, entertainment, education, business, exploration, statesmanship and government, the law, in the military and indeed in all aspects of the country's growth and development from our colonial days to the present. These are contributions that helped the country grow more rapidly, become more prosperous and ultimately emerge as the strongest and most secure nation on earth. All cultures that have become a part of this great melting pot have made important contributions. Diversity has set America apart and helped make our country great. It is truly something worth celebrating. All of the Black History Month programs that I have participated in have been rewarding, but one in particular was memorable. In Valdosta, GA this past Sunday, near the Georgia-Florida line, a grass-roots group of citizens conducted a fundraising drive over the past 2 years to erect an archway which was dedicated and a memorial at the site of unmarked graves of former slaves. The site was discovered some 40 years ago when a gentleman by the name of Mr. Nelson, who was at that time a laborer in the cemetery, was instructed by his superviser to go and to dig and to prepare a compose pit in a certain portion of the Sunset Avenue Cemetery. As he prepared to carry out his instructions and he started to dig, he was interrupted by a woman who was visiting the cemetery, a Mrs. Findley, a black woman who was very, very steeped and knowledgeable of the history of the Valdosta, Lyons County, Brooks County area. She interrupted him and said, son, do you know what you are doing? He said, yes, ma'am, I sure do. She said, what are you doing? He said, I am carrying out the instructions that my boss gave me, and that is what I intend to do. She said, well, let me tell you, before you go any further, what you are about to do is to dig up some of your history. He said, what do you mean? And she explained that at the site legend had it that that was the site of unmarked graves of former slaves who had lived in the Valdosta area. He said, well, I had better check into this. And he went and he brought that to the attention of his supervisor in 1956. He challenged his supervisor and said, I just do not think we ought to go forth with this compose pit without checking further into it. His supervisor paused and he said, all right, we will check into it. And they dug a trench gingerly around the area. They discovered with some exploration that there were indeed the outlines of the graves. So through four or five supervisors, Mr. Nelson protected the area, informing each of his supervisors of what had taken place, and each one allowed that area to be protected and they did not disturb it. But he had a dream that someday that this area would be preserved. And finally with the help of the grass-roots citizens group, a group called the Committee for the History of the Unknown Slaves and a group called Valdosta Project Change, they are able to raise money and to finally dedicate a very meaningful memorial to these individuals. We know a great deal about the lives of the more prominent figures who rose from bondage, figures like Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass. But we know very little about most of the men and women who endured lives of servitude. We do know, however, that they struggled to better themselves and their families. Many learned to read and to write. Many learned skilled trades. They forged lives that were characterized by deep spirituality and a yearning for a new day of freedom and justice. They courageously laid the foundation for the freedom to come. The memorial was dedicated last Sunday. It says: To the unknown slaves of Valdosta, in recognition of their sacrifices and contributions to our community. This recognition is well deserved and long overdue, and I am privileged to have been a part of it.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this phaseout amendment and support the reformed Peanut Program contained in the bill, which is known as cost- and market-oriented, for the rest of the world grows an inedible, poor-quality peanut that is primarily crushed for oil. The American farmer, who only grows 10 percent of the world's supply of peanuts, is the leading exporter of edible peanuts in the world. The United States grows a premium edible peanut known for its flavor, safety, and its quality. To reduce the peanut loan rate to a world market price is to ask United States farmers to match heavily subsidized Chinese peanut prices that have no relationship to the actual cost of production of peanuts in China. Consumers should also be warned that 50 percent of all imported Argentine peanuts examined by FDA fail United States health standards and 100 percent of recent Chinese peanuts examined by FDA have failed United States health standards. It is clear this amendment is not going to help anyone. It is going to hurt the peanut farmer in America, and it is going to hurt the American consumer. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me to be heard on this. This farm bill is something that is tremendously important to the people of the district that I represent. As many of my colleagues already know, I represent the largest peanut growing district anywhere in the United States. Peanuts are a very, very important industry in south Georgia. I represent those very proudly, and I am here to talk about this farm bill because my farmers are anxious. The people in middle and south Georgia are concerned that we are here almost at the end of February with no farm bill. They do not know how much to plant, when they can plant. They do not know how much rent to pay, they do not know how much rent to charge. They do not know whether or not they will be able to get loans in order to finance their crop for the 1996 year. Time is of the essence. We cannot stop the calendar. We cannot stop nature. This farm bill must go forward. There is a lot that I do not like about this farm bill. The direction that we are taking our farm policy is not necessarily a good direction. Yet we have worked very hard to reform the peanut provisions in this bill. I believe that the peanut program has been very thoroughly and soundly reformed and that it will represent market orientation and a low net cost to taxpayers. There are some things we do not particularly care for, but at this point we must get a farm bill and we must get it passed now. I urge this House and my colleague to think seriously about what this farm bill will mean to all the farmers who are now waiting anxiously to get their crops in the ground, to make their financial arrangements, and to get a crop for 1996. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me at this point thank the Democratic leadership in the House, for they have in no way, in any way negative, interfered with the process. They have allowed us to make the decisions; they have allowed us to work toward setting the policy. The unfortunate part is that we have not been allowed by the majority, but we have had a free hand from our leadership to do what we as a committee, members of the Committee on Agriculture, saw best for American agriculture. And it is not only American agriculture. It is out there, the infrastructure, roads, water, housing, electricity, all of those areas that encompass living in rural America. We have the same right as urban and as other areas to expect assistance in areas where there is need. The farm family has the same right to have a light out there in the countryside, to have telephones out there in the countryside, to have roads out there in the countryside, to have assistance for their children at the schools. We have not discussed this; this has not been a part. This has come down, down, down, and we find ourselves here frustrated to the end. After 32 years here, this is a first time that I have had to direct input through the committee process on the final version that we are discussing. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the chairman of the committee, he may share some of his frustration because he might have been on that side of it, but not because of the leadership of the Committee on Agriculture. Always, every ranking member that I had when I was chairman was consulted. Everything was done together. Our leadership did not interfere. If I made a deal with, God rest his soul, Mr. Madigan as ranking member, our leadership agreed and supported us in those agreements. Unfortunately, the willingness of this committee chairman personally has not in any way helped us in that respect because he has not had that freedom and that ability. I do not know if this will make problems for him or not, but this is a fact, that he has been most willing to cooperate at all times, but the guidance and the substance has come from other directions. The timing has come from another direction. We have not been part. The only experience I have had this session with a conference committee was when we were told by the senior Senator, chairman of the conference: ``We are not going to give you any time to speak. I am going to have my say. I am walking out of here. You can stay if you want to. We do not care. We are going to treat you like you treated us.'' We never treated them in the Committee on Agriculture in that respect. I say again, I thank the chairman for his interest in communicating with us, but I am in despair about the process that has been forced on us and has been forced on him. Unless there is an ability to change to make this bill better, I do not see how I can support it. However, I am here to try, and even though the process is limited, the time is limited, the amendments that we can discuss are limited, how some of the amendments got here, because we were still trying to get more funds for rural America. We were not able to. They have been allotted to someone else through another process, not with our participation. For now, I am hoping we can make this a better bill. If not, I will be reluctantly forced to vote against it.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot about keeping their word. I think one of the most interesting things that has happened this year is that during the first 100 days as a part of the so-called Contract With America, there was an item that some of us supported called the line-item veto. We passed the line-item veto. It passed both Houses of the Congress and yet it has not been sent to the President for his signature. They will not send it. They will not keep their word, because had there been a line-item veto, we would not be in this shutdown that we are now in. We would be able to continue the operation of Government and the American people would no longer be suffering, and only those items in the budget where there was a bone of contention would be on the table for discussion. Keeping their word, the Republican leadership ought to keep its word and send to the President a line-item veto and get us out of this shutdown. There are some of us that have supported a 7-year balanced budget, some in the 103d Congress using CBO numbers, but having no tax cut. We are being led to believe that the reason that the Government is shut down is because Democrats and the President will not agree to a 7- year balanced budget using CBO numbers. The real bone of contention is the tax cut, 245 billion dollars' worth for wealthy people, while cutting in half the tax breaks and adding to the taxes of the working poor, people who earn $26,000 a year or less, by repealing half of their earned income tax credit. I must agree with Senator Dole--enough is enough. This message comes across loud and clear from my constituents in the Second District of Georgia. For the second time in 3 months, the U.S. Government ran out of money and nine Federal agencies serving millions of Americans shut their doors. The shutdown occurred after a short-term funding resolution expired and Republicans failed to pass a fair and equitable funding bill for the various agencies. The cost to the taxpayers of this budget failure increases every day that the impasse continues. As the Government shutdown enters its 20th day and the cost of that shutdown to the American taxpayer is $50 million each business day, citizens from southwest Georgia are also experiencing this shutdown in other ways. My constituents are fed up with a shutdown that stops money for the Older Americans Senior Citizens Center, a facility that has provided needed services such as meals and transportation, Meals on Wheels for many senior citizens in Macon, GA; a shutdown that stopped 40 students and teachers from Whigam Elementary School in Whigam, GA from touring the White House, the FBI, the Smithsonian Institute, and from laying a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington National Cemetery after a 2-year fund-raising effort on their part; a shutdown that stops access to passports for members of the African Methodist Episcopal Church who want to travel to South Africa to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the founding of their church in that country, a Mercer University student from Cordele, GA, who earned a fellowship to study this semester in England; and for a Kendrick High School student in Columbus who could not go to Japan on a nonrefundable ticket that she worked a year to purchase, all because she could not get a passport because of the shutdown; a shutdown that stops many Federal workers from paying house payments, utility bills, car notes, and from buying food and medication for family members. Mr. Speaker, this is immoral and unconscionable. Enough is enough. It is time for Republicans to offer a funding bill, a fair and equitable funding bill that will reopen the Government and still continue the budget negotiations. Americans have been away from their jobs long enough and without services long enough. Mr. Speaker, the House should take up and pass H.R. 1643 to end the shutdown of the Government, to return Federal workers to work and restore needed services to American citizens. Then we should pass a fair and equitable balanced budget, 7 years, using CBO numbers, without a tax cut until the budget is balanced.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, When the United States hosts the Olympic games this coming year, it will mark the 100th anniversary of the modern games. My State of Georgia is the official host State. And this is where most of the Olympic events will take place. But not all. A number of other events will be held in communities around the country. The entire country is really the host. In a very real sense, every American is a part of this Olympic celebration. And can take pride in it. Three years ago, Congress enacted the Doug Barnard, Jr.--1996 Atlanta Centennial Olympic Games Commemorative Coin Act. This measure authorized the minting of the largest commemorative coin series ever produced. Today, we are amending that measure to reduce the mintage levels for the upcoming Olympic year. This will boost the sales of the coins by increasing their value to collectors. And these sales raise essential revenue for Atlanta's Olympic committee. The bill is named for former Congressman Doug Bernard, my fellow Georgian who led the way in establishing a financially self-sufficient commemorative coin program. This is fitting recognition of his contributions to the U.S. Mint.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I have profound reservations about the participation of Untied States forces in a Bosnian peacekeeping mission. So do the people I represent. Of the many calls I have received on this matter over the past several days, not one has favored U.S. involvement. At the same time, I also recognize the dangers that are inherent in a policy of noninvolvement. If the United States abandons NATO's peace efforts in Bosnia, we could weaken and even destroy an alliance that has helped deter multinational conflicts for half a century. The current peace initiative would surely collapse. And if this ghastly slaughter ever spreads beyond the borders of the former Yugoslavia, our country's economic and military security would be critically threatened. Americans know that our own security requires a secure peace in Europe. When necessary, they support deployment of our troops as peacekeepers--but not as targets. They want more information about the military plan, troop security, the mission's goals, and the plan for withdrawal. So do I.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the agreement finally reached by the President and Republican leaders to end the shutdown and put government back to work again for the American people. The deal to balance the budget in 7 years is good. But even better is the acceptance, finally, by Republicans in the deal that balancing the budget in 7 years must protect the needs and desires of the American people. It must protect future generations; protect Medicare; protect education; protect Medicaid; protect working families; protect agriculture; protect national defense; protect veterans; protect the environment; and protect economic growth. We finally have a bipartisan agreement to balance the budget in a way that is fair and just to all Americans and not just the rich. We have a bipartisan agreement that reflects the American values and priorities that the President and Democrats have been fighting so hard to preserve. Now let us work to make it happen.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I support a balanced budget, but not the Republican balanced budget. While I object to this unfair and unjust budget plan for many reasons, nothing is more objectionable than the way it treats farmers. They called it ``Freedom to Farm.'' But for millions of America's farm families, this extreme new policy will be known as the ``Freedom-to-go-broke'' act. It abandons the Government's historic policy of helping promote a stable farm marketplace. It puts U.S. farmers at a disadvantage in competing against subsidized foreign producers. While it may give a windfall to a few big food manufacturers, it threatens the very survival of many food producers. The Budget Reconciliation Act is really a confused mixture of agriculture proposals. It continues a peanut program, but it slashes the support price too deeply. It does nothing for the dairy program, which remains under attack. And it kills the programs for cotton, corn, wheat, and rice. We need to reform our national farm policy, not destroy it. But that's exactly what this bill does. Defeat it. It is unfair and unjust to America's farmers.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, the President should not give in to blackmail. The Republican leaders in Congress are attempting to blackmail the American people into accepting a budget-balancing plan that pays for a massive $245 billion tax cut for the rich by extreme $450 billion reductions in Medicare and Medicaid. The Republicans threaten to force the Government to default in its obligations and shut down unless the President lets them balance the budget in 7 years their way--a way that hurts seniors, hurts children, hurts veterans, hurts farmers, hurts rural hospitals, and hurts college students. I am a fiscal conservative. I support a balanced budget. Conservative Democrats offered a bill to balance the budget in 7 years that is credible, makes reasonable reductions in Government programs while preserving those that benefit our Nation's people. The Republican majority rejected this fair bill. Let's get a bipartisan agreement to balance the budget in a way that is fair and just to all Americans--not just the rich. But let's not give in to Republican's blackmail.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about a balanced budget and what the Republicans have offered, but the record ought to be set straight that they are not the only ones that have offered a balanced budget. The conservative Democrats have offered a balanced budget which was rejected by Republicans. It was a proposal to balance the budget in 7 years, consistent with the resolution passed by the House. It balances the budget through reductions in Government programs while preserving the Government programs that benefit society in maintaining the fundamental commitment of Government to its contract with people. On welfare reform, the Democratic budget cuts welfare $60 billion less than the Medicaid cuts in the leadership budget. The Democratic budget cuts $40 billion over 7 years and the Republican budget cuts $100 billion over 7 years. The Democratic budget places stronger work and personal responsibility requirements on individuals than the Republican budget, including a requirement that each individual implement an individual responsibility plan: immediate job training and a 5-year time limit on welfare benefits. It provides incentives and assistance in helping the poor get off welfare, including full funding for child care, full funding for workfare requirement, and State options to extend transitional medical assistance. Regarding the earned income tax credit, the Republican plan would reduce the size and scope of the earned income tax credit. That amounts to a tax increase on the working poor. It would also roll back an important tax incentive for choosing work over welfare. The Democratic budget does not make these eligibility changes. Instead it changes only those things to those which improve targeting and tax compliance with the program. In education, the Democratic budget provides $50 billion more in discretionary spending than the Republican budget over the next 7 years. the funds will make it possible to restore funding for Goals 2000, title I, impact aid, drug-free schools, and other programs that were cut by the Republicans. the budget rejects educational entitlement cuts. The leadership budget, the Republican budget, makes $10.2 billion in cuts. It would raise the cost of student loans by charging students interest during the 6-month grace periods after graduation. It would increase the cost of loans as much a $2,500 over the repayment period. It will raise interest rates on parent loans. It would terminate direct student loan programs. Regarding agriculture, the Democratic budget makes reasonable cuts in agriculture, $4.4 billion over 7 years. It continues existing farm programs with reasonable cuts so that farmers' operating programs, their financing and their investment plans will not be disrupted. The Republican budget, the so-called Freedom to Farm provisions, make $13.4 billion in cuts. It makes no provision for the continuation of agriculture programs beyond the year 2002. It makes it more difficult for farmers to receive credit. It discourages cost-efficient investments in capital equipment. Also it removes the safety net of economic stability in rural communities. The President should not give in to blackmail. The Republican leaders in Congress are attempting to blackmail the American people into accepting a budget-balancing plan that pays for a massive $245 billion tax cut for the rich by extreme $450 billion reductions in Medicare and Medicaid. The Republicans threaten to force the Government to default on its obligations and shut down unless the President lets them balance the budget in 7 years their way, a way that hurts seniors, hurts children, hurts farmers, hurts rural hospitals, and hurts college students. I am a fiscal conservative. I support a balanced budget. Conservative Democrats offered a bill to balance the budget in 7 years that is credible, makes reasonable reductions in Government programs, while preserving those that benefit our Nation's people. The Republican majority reject this fair bill. Let us get a bipartisan agreement to balance the budget in a way that is fair and just to all Americans, not just the rich, but let us not give in to blackmail. [[Page H 12328]]

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to focus on rural communities and the impact of the proposed Republican budget cuts on rural America. Current common wisdom is that two elements are essential for sustainable rural development: first, long-range strategic planning, and second, local leadership. We must support the efforts of State and Federal officials, and more importantly, the motivation and leadership shown by local community leaders who have been successful in making educational advances, and rural economic development a reality in their own communities. But we must look forward to more. We have all heard the statistics describing the decline of agriculture as the main rural economic base. And we know that rural areas differ greatly by region in terms of publication, income levels, and the relative importance of agriculture to the local economy. We also know that the shift in the national economy toward world markets requires rural areas--which are hampered by geographic isolation, inadequate infrastructure, and a shortage of capital--to compete in an unfamiliar global arena. But I believe that the citizens of Georgia, and particularly in the second district, have some of the most enterprising, efficient, and effective rural communities in the Nation. But the budget cuts proposed by the Republican Leadership work against the common wisdom of how we can best support the vitality of our rural communities and citizens. First of all, let me speak about the Republican budget proposal which cuts over $13 billion from our farm commodity programs. These cuts will come out of the pockets of farmers who live in my district. According to a recent letter sent to the Speaker from 15 members of the Speaker's own party, the current Freedom to Farm proposal will cause the U.S. taxpayer to actually spend even more on subsidies under the Freedom to Farm proposal than under the proposal put forth by the Democrats, or even the farm proposal put forward by the Republicans in the other body. Other cuts proposed by the Republicans will put a dagger in rural America. From health care to agriculture to education, the Republican budget targets rural America, where we can least afford to lessen our efforts. The Republican budget raises taxes on over 229 thousand working families in rural Georgia by an average of $368 by the 2002. In addition, the Republican cuts to the earned income tax credit will add an $84.5 million tax increase on working families and their children in rural Georgia. Republican education cuts will deny 113,000 children basic and advanced skills instruction in rural America in 1996 alone. Title 1 funds for reading instruction in rural areas will be cut by $113 million, denying crucial assistance at a time when many small-town and rural school systems are already having trouble making ends meet. The Republican budget will cut rural housing funding in our small communities. Cuts to public housing capital assistance in rural areas will total $460 million next year, which will severely hinder efforts by rural housing agencies to provide security and anticrime programs. The Republicans will also cut $108 million in funding for assistance to the homeless in rural America. This will mean 4.9 million fewer nights of shelter for America's rural homeless. Republicans propose to cut Medicare by $270 billion in this body-- three times larger than the largest cuts in history--just to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy. Their budget will cut Medicare spending in rural communities by $58 billion over 7 years, a 20-percent cut in the year 2002. The Republican cuts will force 9.6 million older and disabled Americans in rural America to pay higher premiums and higher deductibles. In Georgia, it will cut $2.7 billion for our rural areas from Medicare. The Republican Medicaid cuts will eliminate coverage for children, nursing home residents, and people who need long-term care throughout rural America. Two million, two hundred thousand rural Americans-- including over 1 million children--will be denied medicaid coverage. The budget will cut Medicaid in rural areas by as much as $45 billion, forcing poor children, people with disabilities, and older Americans to lose coverage. We should be focusing on four key principles that will help our rural communities: First: Providing economic opportunity that will create jobs within the community and region, and training for jobs that offer upward mobility; Second: Offering assistance for sustainable community development to further the creation of vibrant community institutions; Third: Encouraging community-based partnerships that involve all segments of the community, including our centers of learning and community institutions; and Fourth: Helping to provide a strategic vision for change that builds on the assets of the community--coordinating a response to community needs in a comprehensive fashion. We must look forward to the survival of small and rural communities; we should not be looking for opportunities to twist the dagger into the heart of rural America, the dagger that is offered by the Republican budget proposals.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, when jurisdiction over farm commodity programs is transferred from the Agriculture Committee to the Budget and Rules Committees, it is an unprecedented attempt by the Republican leadership in this body to stifle the influence of Members who represent the interests of our farmers. It is an abuse of power. It is a slap in the face of America's farmers. It should outrage everyone who is concerned about the future of rural communities. There is one thing you can say about this development: It may be an abuse of power, and it is bipartisan abuse. It not only seeks to shut out the voice of [[Page H 9653]] Democrats on the Agriculture Committee, like myself, it shuts out the voices of Republican Members who also oppose radical changes that would effectively destroy critically needed commodity programs. Reforms are needed. We need to cut the costs of these programs. We need to make them more market oriented. Farmers understand this. The area of Georgia I represent grows more peanuts than any place in the world. My colleague from the neighboring Eighth District and I have introduced a new peanut program that eliminates Government costs. It represents dramatic change. But, evidently, this is not enough. The majority leadership will evidently not be satisfied until commodity programs that give our farmers a more level playing field in the world marketplace are destroyed. Members of the Agriculture committee represent agricultural areas. They have special expertise in the needs of farmers and agribusiness. Just like other committees dealing with other areas of the economy, they have always had a key role to play in shaping farm policy. That role is now under attack. Mr. Speaker, we will not be silenced. Members who represent farm-belt areas will continue the fight for a fair deal for the country's farm producers.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this appropriations bill, VA, HUD. Cuts go too deeply. They have cut housing, veterans, space, environmental programs, HUD cut 23 percent, deepest cuts against the homeless people, funds for the elderly and disabled cut in half, operating expenses for improving public housing cut, elderly and low- income people soon to become homeless, EPA cut 33 percent, the Superfund toxic waste sites cleanup cut a third, the State revolving loan funds for sewage treatment plants cut in half, no funds for safe drinking water loan fund, veterans cut $1 billion, almost, veterans medical care cut $250 million under request, VA administrative costs and construction costs $500 million below requests, no new veterans hospitals, services to veterans who are now receiving it, 916,000 of them will be cut, the President's National Service Program cut. Cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts. We need to do something better than this. We need to send this bill back. This appropriation is insufficient, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Durbin amendment. It would devastate the economy of key Southern States like Georgia. Tobacco growers would be only farmers who will be punished. This is a punitive effort. Since the Depression, we have been denied access to government research, to education, and to extension services for a legal crop. We are not talking about growing marijuana here. We are talking about a legal crop. And it is an administrative nightmare that is about to be created here. It is misguided. What the amendment says with regard to extension agents' salaries is that the salaries will not be paid if they provide any services to help tobacco growers. But what about the people in those counties that do not grow tobacco? Their salaries would be cut, so they cannot even help the ones who grow corn. That does not make any sense. This amendment is misguided, it is punitive, it is a slap in the face to southern States. It is a slap in the face of farmers, small family farmers, who work hard. Why shouldn't they have crop insurance if they grow a legal product? Why should they not be able to help support their families and the economy of this Nation? Nine thousand farmers in my State of Georgia make their living growing tobacco. Twenty-eight thousand warehouses, other in the retail industry. Overall, the tobacco industry contributes to the economy of Georgia thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars for a legal product. I submit to you that the amendment is misguided, it is an administrative nightmare, it will punish the growers of crops that are non-tobacco crops in counties where they do grow tobacco. It just makes absolutely no sense. It is a case that reminds me of the years of prohibition.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I am very thankful that I have had an opportunity during this exceptionally busy year to attend two annual conferences of the African Methodist Church in Georgia, the Southwest Georgia Conference held in Columbus and the South Georgia Conference in Albany. I am also planning to attend the third A.M.E. church conference this month, the upcoming conference in Macon. These church convocations are both uplifting from a spiritual point of view and beneficial to me as a legislator. Resolutions adopted by the 83d session of the South Georgia Conference, presided over by the Right Reverend Donald George Kenneth Ming, are an example of how religious organizations can help guide our deliberations in incisive, thought-provoking ways. I would therefore submit the attached epistle and the four accompanying resolutions, which were developed by the committee on the state of the country: The 83d Session of the South Georgia Annual Conference of the Sixth Episcopal District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church--The Right Reverend Donald George Kenneth Ming, Presiding Bishop March 24, 1995. To: Congressman Sandford D. Bishop, Jr. Second Congressional District for the State of Georgia. From: The Committee on the State of the Country. The enclosed resolutions are excerpts from the minutes of the committee assigned to review, to evaluate and to propose resolutions to resolve the continued decay of crippling ills of our society. We, therefore, the ministerial and lay delegates to this, the 83rd Session of the South Georgia Conference, presided by the Right Reverend Donald George Kenneth Ming, would like to go on record stating our concerns on these issues. We, therefore, solicit your personal commitment to deliver these resolutions to the floor of Congress and oratorically resound our concerns in such a manner that the walls of Congress will tremble until equality and justice grip the minds and hearts of your fellow political constituents. We can no longer sit idly in the bosom of a society that will not nurture, from the breasts of prosperity, her children from ill-housing, inefficient educational systems, rural and urban wastelands, cultural deficiencies, health deformities, political annihilations, affirmation action irregularities and the criminal seige of a demoralizing society. We, therefore, collectively, as members of your Congressional District, challenge your involvement as a vehicle which will enable us to stand in these times as we make a ``Contract with America'' to retain an air of dignity, of respect and of self-worth to our God, to our fellowman, and to ourselves. Respectfully submitted, The Committee on the State of the Country. The Right Reverend Donald George Kenneth Ming, Presiding Bishop. Mrs. Edith White Ming, Episcopal Supervisor. Reverend Clifford Earl Shepheard, Presiding Elder. [[Page E1066]] Reverend Johnnie Lonnie Raven, Jr., Presiding Elder. Reverend Eugene Foster, Chairperson. Reverend Hayward White. Reverend W. F. Griffin. Reverend Jaunita Parker. Reverend Charlie Byrd. Sister Constance Hamilton. Brother Ralph Taylor. Brother Stonewall Pertilla. Dr. Evelyn G. Perry, Compiler.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, as the 100 days come to an end, I want to compliment our friends on the other side of the aisle for the positive things that have happened, including, for example, the enactment of measures to put Congress under the same laws that we impose on others and to restrict unfunded mandates on the States and on communities Unfortunately, though, these bright moments have been too few and too far between. All too soon, the 100 days became excessively partisan and very extreme. In too many instances, the Contract With America became a means of lining the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle-income working families. It became a flamboyant, circus- like, promotional vehicle worthy of P.T. Barnum at his best. And yes, tomorrow the circus does come to town. As we consider the Republican tax bill and the offsetting spending cuts, just consider who the winners really are. The wealthiest 10 percent of our population get 47 percent of the benefits. The wealthiest 5 percent get 36 percent of the benefits. The wealthiest 1 percent get 20 percent of the benefits. This causes a revenue loss of $178 billion in the first 5 years, and $458 billion in the second 5 years. Is this loss of revenue going to reduce the deficit? No. Is this loss of revenue going to balance the budget? No. It is going to the rich. Who is going to pay for it? I will tell you who is going to pay for it: hungry children who are cut from school lunches, mothers and infants who depend on WIC for healthy births and early childhood development, promising students who cannot afford higher education without student loans, older citizens whose lives depend on heating assistance. These are spending cuts, Mr. Speaker, but they do not go to balance the budget as Republicans claim they want to do with spending cuts. No. Instead, they choose to take money from children, from mothers, from students and from the elderly and give it to the wealthy 10 percent of our population. This is a tax bill that robs the poor and working families to pay the rich. This is a tax bill that hoodwinks the American people. This is a tax bill that is immoral. This is a tax bill that ought to be sent to purgatory.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, unlike the Republican plan, the Deal substitute offers real welfare reform. Deal is real reform, because it is tough and compassionate. It links strict work requirements with training opportunities and gives support services recipients need to move from welfare to work. It is tough, because it sets a time limit for benefits and requires recipients to accept individual responsibility plans for education, parenting, budgeting, and substance abuse. It is compassionate because it makes available public service jobs after 2 years of unsuccessful job search. It ensures work will pay more than welfare by extending transitional health care benefits, giving an earned income tax credit, and providing the essential element of child care during training and work. And on top of that, it gives States flexibility to do innovative things like programs to avoid teenage pregnancy. The Deal substitute is modeled after the Georgia Peach and Work First Programs which have moved Georgians from welfare to work. effective and do not just destroy them and empower families through training and jobs but do not just cut off, that promote individual responsibility and not just abdicate it. For real welfare reform, we need the Deal substitute.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with those who over the years have been, and continue to be, truly concerned about the citizens of America who need us the most. Currently H.R. 4 will substitute block grant funding for Federal nutrition programs. This block grant procedure would probably eliminate federally sponsored nutrition programs such as; (WIC) and the School Lunch and Breakfast programs among others, and substitute a single Federal payment to the States. Based on Congressional Budget Office data, funding for the school nutrition block grant would be $170 million less than the levels that would be provided under current law. The proposed block grants would end the entitlement status of the school lunch and breakfast programs. Thus, during recessions, States and school districts with rising unemployment could be forced to choose between denying free meals to newly poor children and raising taxes, or reducing other programs to secure more resources in the middle of a recession. We need a bill that maintains nutrition programs for children and the elderly, including WIC and school lunch program. These programs have produced significant and measurable outcomes among children who participate in them. The block grant structure proposed by H.R. 4 can't respond when the economy changes and place children at risk by eliminating nutrition standards responsible for improved children's health. We need a bill that has strong anti-fraud and abuse provisions for the Food Stamp program. We need a bill that has work requirements for able-bodied food stamp recipients, that also helps States provide work placement and job training for food stamp recipients. We need a simplified food stamp program, revising administrative rules and simplified determination of eligibility. We need a program that retains the annual inflation adjustments for the cost of food, a program that provides a basic benefit level. We do not need a bill, such as H.R. 4, that underfunds real welfare reform by cutting spending while giving States block grants which do not increase even if the State is in recession, or has a drastic increase in its poor population. The Republican welfare reform bill talks about work but does little to achieve it. It does not have meaningful work requirements for moving people from welfare to work. It does not provide the necessary education and training to prepare people for work. We need a bill that provides tough, meaningful work requirements for welfare recipients. Real welfare reform must be about replacing a welfare check with a paycheck. The Deal substitute provides work requirements for welfare recipients, requiring states to place 16% of recipients in work in the first year and 20% in the second year. HR 4 does not reach the same work participation rate. I am interested in the positive health effects that these nutrition programs have on our poor children, needy elderly, and handicapped in our country. I have heard testimony which clearly outlined the negative impact of block granting to the states of commodity distribution programs in lieu of the current nutrition program funding mechanisms. In addition, a discretionary block grant would eliminate the entitlement status of nutrition programs and subject each year's nutrition program funding to the Congressional appropriations process. There is talk that compromises were made in H.R. 4 which allowed the Food Stamp program to remain an entitlement program but at the same time placing a cap on benefits for the Program. The compromises also provided that all other nutrition programs could be block granted to the states. I want to commend the leadership of the Agriculture Committee for this effort, but I believe that the block granting with limited funding goes too far. In the Mississippi delta, in the coal fields of Appalachia, in the red clay hills of Georgia, 25 years ago one could see large numbers of stunted, apathetic children with swollen stomachs and the dull eyes and poorly healing wounds characteristic of malnutrition. Such children are not to be seen in such numbers today. The need for nutrition assistance has not diminished. We must not give up the accomplishments our nutrition programs achieved in the past decades. We must find ways to improve our programs. We must have flexibility at the State level, reducing excessive administrative requirements, and encourage innovation in the delivery of services to the needy. Mr. Chairman, I reject H.R. 4 and support the Deal substitute for commonsense welfare reform. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].