Sanford Bishop

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. I feel that it is a slap in the face to our Nation's veterans. I feel that it is certainly a disservice to our Nation's veterans, and it is tantamount, as I said earlier, to having the check come back marked ``Insufficient Funds.''

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, I will, if the gentlewoman will yield further.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the men and women who have served in the Armed Forces, we Americans live in the freest, the most bountiful, and the most secure country in the world. All of us will agree, I am sure, that we owe each and every one of our veterans a deep debt of gratitude. On patriotic holidays we express our thanks in speeches and parades, and well we should, because when our veterans signed up and answered the call with their faithful service to our Nation, our Government in essence issued a promissory note, a check assuring them certain basic benefits, including education and job training opportunities, housing assistance, and a health care system that specifically serves veterans, the veterans' population, when they need it, for life. It will be a tragic day, Mr. Speaker, if that check is ever returned marked ``Insufficient Funds.'' In essence, that is exactly what will be happening if Congress votes to support the more than $206 million in VA rescissions the Appropriations Committee is recommending, rescissions that will eliminate critically needed high-priority improvements in the veterans' health care system that must sooner or later be implemented if the system is to meet its needs in the immediate years ahead. These funds are earmarked for six ambulatory care projects totaling $156 million and medical equipment purchases totaling $50 million. The ambulatory care projects are needed to carry out the projected transfer of many inpatient-care patients to a more cost-effective outpatient care. In the long run it will cost much more money to continue to hospitalize many thousands of patients who could be treated on an outpatient basis. Rescinding this investment makes no sense from either a financial standpoint or a medical standpoint. It will prevent the Veterans' Administration from moving to more cost-effective and efficient operations. This means higher costs for current services and fewer resources for meeting future needs. The VA health care system must either move forward or it will inevitably face decline, and that will be tantamount to breaking our promise. Mr. Speaker, veterans are already shouldering their share of the burden of budget cuts in recent years, and then some. The Budget Reconciliation Acts of 1990 and 1993 alone have cut VA benefits and services by nearly $7 billion. Additional cuts can be expected in the VA budget that Congress will consider for the next fiscal year, and now on top of all this the House Appropriations Committee is proposing that Congress slash VA health care funds already appropriated and included in the current budget. Either we keep our promise to provide a quality health care system for our veterans or we renege on that promise. This is the fundamental issue that we will be debating when this ill- conceived rescissions package is brought to the floor next week. In addition to the personal sacrifices that veterans have made in the defense of our country, we will be asking them to sacrifice benefits and services that have been promised and approved. Mr. Speaker, let us keep our word. Let us restore these funds. Vote to build the VA health care system, not tear it down.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman is aware, we had hearings in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I think the Secretary appeared and indicated that he had not been consulted, and I think that the committee records would reveal that probably there were no consultations from the authorizing committee. This was something that happened sui sponte. There was no consultation at all, and I think, as the gentlewoman alludes to it, this was the old-fashioned way of doing things, and apparently that is what we are faced with.

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. BISHOP. No, no, they are cost-effective dollars, very cost- effective.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. I thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, 8 days following the event known to history as Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon Johnson came to this Chamber to formally call on Congress to enact the Voting Rights Act. In his remarks, the President predicted that Selma would prove to be a turning point in the country's history comparable to Lexington and Concord. As we now know, he was right. The Voting Rights Act had been under discussion for some time. But it was Bloody Sunday that gave it the momentum to finally get through the House of Representatives and Senate and become law. Its impact was nothing less than revolutionary. The new law authorized the Attorney General to send Federal examiners to supersede local registrars wherever discrimination occurred. This provided a means for dealing with disenfranchisement cases quickly and effectively without going through the prolonged and cumbersome process of litigation. Prior to enactment, millions of Americans were routinely denied the right to vote. After enactment, the opportunity to register and vote was immediately opened to all Americans for the first time in the country's history. Although a majority of Selma's residents were black, only 3 percent had been permitted to register in 1965. Many techniques were employed to keep people disenfranchised. If an ``i'' was not dotted or a ``t'' crossed, a registration form was thrown out. If the registration form was filled out perfectly, a verbal literacy test was administered with questions so obscure the registrars themselves could not have answered them. And even if the questions were answered correctly, the registrars could tell applicants they failed anyway. There was, after all, no appeal. When organized voter registration efforts got underway in Selma as early as 1962, firings, arrests, and beatings became recurring realities of life. On one occasion, 32 teachers were fired, en mass, just for trying to register. There were instances when blacks tried to register in large numbers and were kept waiting in lines from morning to night without ever having a chance to register with police standing guard throughout the day to prevent anyone from giving them food or water. These forms of government oppression intensified when Dr. King made Selma the center of the civil rights movement early in 1965. Within a few months, hundreds of people involved in the voter registration campaign--white and black--were severely injured and three lost their lives. Much of the violence--particularly the brutal trampling and beatings of men, women and of television audiences from coast to coast. Millions of Americans of both races were outraged. In fact, thousands of people ignored the dangers and poured into Alabama from all over the country in the weeks following Bloody Sunday to join the continuing demonstrations. People were outraged over the injustice. On one side, people saw courage. On the other, they saw an extreme abuse of power. They saw one side simply seeking the right to vote. And the other advocating the denial of rights. They saw the non-violence of one side and the unrestrained and often unlawful violence of the other. And they could not miss the fact that one side was steeped in faith and spirituality and the other side in raw hatred. These stark contrasts certainly influenced the tide of public opinion. But I believe many Americans were influenced by something more personal. I believe people throughout the country began to understand that if the most fundamental right of citizenship could be denied to one group of people it could surely be denied to anyone. It might be African-Americans today, tomorrow it might be people who belong to the wrong political party, or the wrong religion, or nationality. The denial of voting rights to black Americans was, in fact, threatening to undermine the very foundation on which our republic stands. In my view, it was a struggle that involved more than the rights of one group of citizens. In a very real sense, it was a struggle for the very soul of our country. Selma galvanized America behind the Voting Rights Act. And the Voting Rights Act changed America. When our esteemed colleague, John Lewis, received a key to the city where he was clubbed 30 years ago, it was dramatically symbolic of this change. To be sure, the country still has its share of problems. Poverty and hunger and intolerance still exist. Too much crime and drug abuse and violence plague our communities. We still have disparities in opportunities. But just as the Selma demonstrators walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge 2 weeks after Bloody Sunday during those memorable days in 1965, and continued their march freely and triumphantly to Montgomery, so has America crossed a bridge into a new ERA of expanded freedom and opportunity for all. Throughout the country's history, one of our strengths has been our capacity for self-correction--the capacity to confront our problems, to deal with them, and eventually to emerge with a renewed and strengthened commitment to the ideals of equality of justice and opportunity on which America was founded. Lexington and Concord were early examples. Selma is a more recent one. I am proud to be an American. I am proud of my native State of Alabama and my adopted State of Georgia where I have lived and worked for most of my adult life. With all my heart, I believe in the values our country and our States have advanced for more than two centuries-- values which so many Americans have defended with their lives. We commemorate the events that took place in Selma three decades ago for a reason. It is a part of our history that reaffirms these values that we treasure more than life itself. It is reaffirmation of the march toward justice and equality of opportunity that our country has been engaged in for more than 200 years. But more than that, it forces us to focus on the threats of immediate and imminent danger that America now faces from the attacks on affirmative action, to remedy the effects of hundreds of years of discrimination, intimidation, violence and race, to the renewed attacks in the courts on the Voting Rights Act that was paid for with blood, with sweat and with tears on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Mr. Speaker, I come here tonight to commemorate the brave people who stood before the tremendous odds, the violence, and faced the harsh punishment of merely seeking to ask for their rights. I salute my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. John Lewis, and the hundreds and hundreds of others who paid the price that we might have our voting rights. America, this is 1995, 30 years later. Let us not turn back the clock. Let us not go back to where we were in 1965. Thank God we can remember the bloody Sunday in Selma in 1965.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deep concern over Republican proposals that would excessively cut nutrition programs-- proposals which could jeopardize the future of our children and our ability to compete in the global economy. Our country has had a long-standing, bipartisan commitment to ensuring an adequate nutritious diet for our most vulnerable citizens. Members on both sides of the aisle have always before recognized that the country's strength depends on having a healthy, productive population, and nutrition programs contribute substantially to that goal. The School Lunch Program was started in 1946 as a national security measure in response to the large number of men enlisting in the armed forces who were found to be malnourished. Other Federal nutrition programs, such as the Food Stamp Program and WIC, were developed in response to findings of widespread hunger in the late 1960's. In 1967, for example, the Field Foundation sponsored a study that was shocking to much of America. It found that hunger and poverty were shortening the lives of many And if it was happening in the rural south, it was certainly also happening in many urban areas of the country where poverty was prevalent. Federal nutrition programs have made a big difference in improving the lives of needy children and their families. These programs have given children access to better diets, which, in turn, has led to better health and a greater ability to learn in school and become productive citizens. I have seen the results of the nutrition programs in my own State. In Georgia, more than 400,000 low-income children per month receive benefit of food stamps which help their families purchase nutritious food. More than 200,000 Georgia children receive help for school breakfasts and more than 450,000 receive help for school lunches. These programs provide a vital safety net. Last year, for example, the Food Stamp Program provided emergency help for many families who lost their homes and their livelihoods in the flooding which struck parts of the area of Georgia I represent. Countless stories can be told of how nutrition programs have literally saved families during times of emergency. Some of the untested reform proposals being discussed in Congress would threaten to slash nutrition funding for school children, for mothers and infants, for the elderly. If these programs can be better managed, fine. But simply slashing the level of funding or capping it arbitrarily would inevitably lead to increased hunger and all of the suffering and costs that are associated with poor nutrition. We can ill afford, Mr. Speaker, to place the health and well-being of our children, our economy and the country as a whole in jeopardy by turning back the clock on the gains that have been made over the past half century. Let us cut short the Republican plans to cut short the nutrition programs so vital to America's women, infants, children and seniors. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I am happy the gentlewoman pointed that out because I come from a district that has some of the poorest counties anywhere in the United States, and we have numerous individuals and families that suffer from malnutrition, and we have low birth weight babies that are born which ultimately has to be paid for by Medicaid, and it is a lot easier and a lot cheaper on society and on our taxpayers if we pay for a $6,000 delivery as opposed to a $150,000 delivery with incubation for that low birth weight baby.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, from its beginning nearly 50 years ago, Black History Month has helped enlighten the country about the true role played by African-Americans in the country's cultural, intellectual, and economic development. It has given millions of black citizens, particularly young people, a better sense of their heritage and a more hopeful vision for their own future and the future of the country. At a time when poverty, and drug abuse, and violence still plague our communities everywhere, the importance of this observance has never been greater. So it is a special privilege, Mr. Speaker, to have an opportunity to participate in this special order commemorating Black History Month. I would like to particularly pay tribute this evening to a noted black American who was born in my own congressional district in south Georgia. His name was Henry Ossian Flipper. He was born into slavery in 1856 in Thomasville. His dream was to become an officer in the U.S. Army, and following the Civil War he set out to fulfill that dream. In spite of the incredible obstacles, Henry Flipper succeeded in securing an appointment to West Point. In fact, he turned down the enormous sum of $5,000--about $75,000 in today's economy--offered by a white student for his academy nomination. Although he was to suffer abuse and ostracism during his years at West Point, he persevered and became the academy's first black graduate. While serving with the 10th Cavalry in the West, he was falsely accused of embezzling commissary funds. And, although he was exonerated, he was nevertheless discharged from the Service. Perhaps his success after that profound setback is the most inspirational part of his life. During the remaining years of his life, he was to serve as an inventor, surveyor, engineer, newspaper editor and author, a developer of the Alaskan Railway system, a special agent to the U.S. Justice Department, an assistant to the Secretary of the Interior, and a pioneer in the country's oil industry. But Henry Flipper always considered himself, first and foremost, a soldier. He repeatedly appealed to Congress to clear his name. But was rejected. When he died, he was buried in an unmarked grave in Atlanta. His death certificate listed the one occupation he wished recorded: ``retired Army officer.'' It was not until 1977 that the Army formally reinstated him to honorable status. His body was reinterred amid full military honors and a 21-gun salute. Today, his statute is on the grounds of West Point. His story is an inspiration to us today because he faced injustice and bigotry with courage, honor and dignity. By examining his life, we are taught the importance of hard work and determination. Through him, we know the value of education. His fight to regain his honor gives us a thirst for truth. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting during Black History Month to reflect on the lives of great Americans like Henry Ossian Flipper of Thomasville, GA.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gibbons-McDermott substitute for H.R. 831. Unlike the committee bill, the substitute provides for both a permanent 25-percent health insurance deduction for the self-employed and a tax preference for persons who sell broadcast facilities to minorities. Congress has provided for a health insurance tax deduction for the self-employed since 1986. As a freshman Member in 1993, I supported this deduction because it is good for business. It is good for farmers and for all who are self-employed. A self-employed individual should be permitted the same health insurance deduction that is provided to the Fortune 500 businesses. But at the least 25 percent. Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly, however, that a vote in support of the health insurance deduction should not mean a vote against the tax preference for sales of broadcast companies to minority-owned firms. These two worthwhile policies should not be mutually exclusive. In 1978, Congress recognized the need for a tax preference for persons who sold broadcast facilities to minorities. The tax preference was developed in order to increase minority ownership of radio and television stations. Since that time, Congress has repeatedly reaffirmed this policy through annual appropriations legislation and the Reagan administration extended the policy to cable systems. Today, nearly 20 years later, the need for incentives to increase broadcast diversity is even greater. Opponents of the tax preference program point to one apparently legal transaction and allege the absence of real minority ownership in that transaction. If the program is subject to this type of abuse, then let us engage in corrective measures rather than act as extremists and repeal the entire program. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Gibbons-McDermott substitute provides for such corrective measures. In addition to requiring that minorities demonstrate real equity ownership, it also requires minorities to prove voting and management control. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the substitute bill which allows two beneficial policies to coexist.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], requiring that readiness, modernization of equipment and quality of life for military personnel and their families are adequately funded and given priority over national missile defense. The cold war is over, and the threat of a large-scale nuclear war has been greatly diminished. While I agree with my colleagues that there is a need for missile defense programs, I do not believe that additional funding should be placed in a space-based interceptor system at this time. Mr. Chairman, in the two previous administrations, we poured over $30 billion into programs like Brilliant Pebbles, gamma ray lasers, neutral particle beams, and more, and all we have to show for it are the engineering view graphs. After spending $30 billion we do not have one weapons system to show for the Strategic Defense Initiative. I have four military installations either in or on the edge of my district. Moody Air Force Base, Albany Marine Logistics Base, Fort Benning, the Army's premier infantry center, and Robins Air Force Base. Most importantly, the military personnel, these young men and women, are the first to deploy and leave their families in time of conflict. They always stand ready to go on the call of the Commander-in-Chief, professionals, trained to execute their military orders, and, if necessary, they are willing to pay the ultimate price. When visiting these installations, my conversations with the troops focus around the issues of readiness, of modernization of equipment, and the quality of life for their families. Many of them are concerned about sufficient support for our military effectiveness. They question whether we will truly be able to adequately fight two major conflicts anywhere in the world at one time. They further question me about the commitment of this Congress to replace outdated equipment, weapons systems, computer systems, software and hardware, and, last but not least, they express concern about the lack of adequate housing and the other support for the welfare of their young military dependent families. Let there be no misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman. These young men and women are not complaining about serving their country. In fact, they serve this country with great pride, dignity, and honor. At a time when we pledge to balance the budget and to be more responsible in our spending, let us be responsible to the readiness and the welfare of our troops and their families. Support the amendment that invests in readiness, in modernization, and quality of life for our military personnel and their military dependent families. Support the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment offered by the gentlemen from South Carolina requiring that readiness, modernization of equipment, and quality of life for military personnel and their families are adequately funded and given priority over national missile defense. The cold war is over and the threat of a large scale nuclear war has been diminished. While I agree with my colleagues that there is a need for a Missile Defense Program, I do not believe that additional funding should be placed in a space-based interceptor system at this time. Mr. Speaker, in the two previous Administrations we poured over $30 billion dollars into programs like Brilliant Pebbles, Gamma Ray Lasers, Neutral Particle Beams, and more, and all we have to show for it are the engineering view graphs. After spending $30 billion, we do not have one weapon system to show for the Strategic Defense Initiative. I have four major installations in or on the edge of my District: Moody Air Force Base, Albany Marine Logistics Base, Fort Benning, the Army's premier Infantry training facility, and Robins Air Force Base. Most importantly, the military personnel, these young men and women, are the first to deploy and leave their families during a time of conflict. They always stand ready to go on the call of the Commander in Chief. Professionals, trained to execute their military orders and if necessary pay the ultimate price. When visiting these installations, my conversations with the troops focus around the issues of readiness, modernization of equipment, and the quality of life for their families. Many of them are concerned about sufficient support for military effectiveness. They question whether we will truly be able to adequately fight two major conflicts anywhere in the world at one time. They further question me about the commitment of Congress to the replacement of outdated equipment, computer systems, software, and hardware; and, last but not least, they express concern about the lack of adequate housing and support for the welfare of their young military dependent families. Let there be no misunderstanding, these young men and women are not complaining about serving their country. In fact, they serve this country with great pride, dignity, and honor. At a time when we've pledged to balance the budget and be more responsible in our spending, let's be responsible to the readiness and welfare of our troops and their families. Support the amendment that invests in readiness, modernization, and quality of life.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, when Sheriff Carlton Powell of Thomas County in rural south Georgia called our Washington office yesterday to inquire about the cops fast program, he commended Congress for helping to fight the war against crime in a very effective way. He said there is nothing Congress can do that is more effective in the fight against crime than to increase the number of law officers available at the local level. Congress, he said, is finally helping to concentrate more of the country's limited anticrime resources where they are needed most, on the front lines. Sheriff Powell also expressed a concern. He is concerned that Congress is about to take a tremendous step backward. If Congress junks the program designed to expand police forces throughout our communities, then we are sending a blank check block grant program back which will, in his words, kick police off the porch. When are we going to learn? When are we going to have enough good sense to listen to community law officers, who have been leading the charge against crime every day? State, city, and county crime officers like Sheriff Powell have been telling us for years more police over on the street should be the top priority. But until the last term of Congress little has been done at the Federal level to assure that critical need. Expanding prisons and the judicial system is good. However, spending for the number of police officers per 10,000 citizens has not kept up. We have got to do what is necessary to put our police officers on the street. Mr. Chairman, let us listen to what local law enforcement communities have been telling us, and to continue to move forward, rather than backwards, at this critical, critical need. Let us have enough good sense to preserve the one program that is working effectively and efficiently. Let us stay on target. Let us pass the Conyers-Schumer- Chapman amendment and continue putting more police officers on the streets to guarantee that our communities will be safer tomorrow than they are today. The fact is, our area of Georgia has been at the very cutting edge of the Cops-on-the-Beat Program. In Columbus, Police Chief Jim Wetherington was one of the first to receive funding, local funding, and now he has nine new federally funded officers now in the police academy and soon to be deployed on the streets of his city. In Albany, Chief Joseph Lumpkin has already deployed new officers in year it has already measurably reduced Albany's crime rate. In Valdosta, Chief Charlie Spray says there is a new rapport between the community and his police officers because of the additional police on the streets. In the town of Vienna, Chief Bobby Reed says the program has already helped deter crime, and he, too, is seeing an immediate impact on his community's crime rate. Some of our law officers say they like the idea of more flexibility. But, overwhelmingly, they do not want the Cops-on-the-Beat Program dismantled. During the 1980's, the emphasis was primarily on expanding prisons and the judicial system, and spending at the Federal and State levels climbed rapidly in these areas. At the same time, however, spending for the number of police per 10,000 citizens barely increased at all. While the number of violent crimes leaped by an enormous 37 percent over the last half of the 1980's, the total number of police increased by a relatively meager 16 percent. When the administration and Congress enacted the bill that created the cops fast and cops ahead programs this past term, we were finally paying attention. These programs have already deployed 17,000 additional police officers in cities and towns across the country and will add 83,000 more over the next few years. We are doing this efficiently, making sure the money goes for crime fighters and not bureaucrats by spending less than 1 percent of the funding for administration. We are targeting our limited resources for a purpose that is certain to produce positive results. We are doing what an overwhelming number of our community law officers tell us we ought to be doing. Mr. Chairman, the war against crime is just that--a war. And to fight a war we must have soldiers. Like any way, it is impossible to fully calculate the costs in terms of human misery. But it is possible to figure out how much it costs in dollars. Economists say the cost of crime to our society totals about $674 billion a year--more than twice the amount the Federal Government spends annually on defense. Many things need to be done to fight this war. We need more prisons, tougher and longer sentences for violent criminals. We also need closer monitoring of criminals on probation. We need to attack drug and alcohol abuse. We need to help people become employed and remain employed. We need to keep young people in school and out of youth gangs. We most certainly need more--not fewer--police officers on our streets.

Mr. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to echo what I have heard from the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]. I, too, remember the oath that the Members of this body took when we were sworn into this office. I just went up to the Clerk's desk and asked the Clerk to allow me to refresh my recollection. We said: I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. This bill, Mr. Chairman, does not do that. In fact, in order to save this body in terms of our integrity, we must support the Watt amendment, because the Watt amendment reaffirms the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To vote against the Watt amendment is to vote against the fourth amendment to the Constitution. To vote against the Constitution is to violate the oath of office that each and every Member of this body took to uphold, to support, and defend that Constitution. As the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] so eloquently stated, our contract is the Constitution of the United States. Let us have a contract with and for America, not a contract on America.