Vic Snyder

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment. It just maintains current law to move ahead with the process of necessary base closure. With regard to the previous statements made about BRAC math, GAO, CBO, the Department of Defense, and the Army Audit Agency have all concluded that prior rounds have indeed saved substantial sums of money and more savings are expected. But just as important is the realignment, the R in the BRAC. Our forces are currently going through readjustments as they come back home, as we are fighting a war. We need to give the authority to go ahead and do this process to enable more jointness and more effectiveness in crossing service lines. We also have to remember that both former-President Clinton and President Bush have supported moving ahead with another line of base closures. This is a bipartisan effort from both administrations. We also hear the argument that this is a difficult time to do this, that we are at war, that the military is under stress. But the world is not going to take a time-out for 3 or 4 years while we to this. That is not how the world works. It is time to move ahead with this. There is not going to be a perfect time to do it. I have great concerns about communities, as we all do. I do not see how another delay of 2 years, forcing these communities to be apprehensive about this, to hire more lobbyists, to be involved in this process for an additional 2 years, a prolongation of this process, how that helps communities. They probably are in as good shape now as they are ever going to be. The most important point I want to make is that this is a bipartisan effort that has gone on through multiple Secretaries of Defense from both Republican and Democratic administrations, from both President Clinton and President Bush. Now is not the time to delay another round of base closures. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) in his amendment before the Committee on Armed Services wanted six additional reports. The language in the Kennedy amendment retains those six reports. If his amendment passes, that would be added to the current base closure process. I encourage a vote of ``yes'' on the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you. And that was a correct parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SNYDER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Do the rules of the House provide for the press to have access to the gallery of the House?

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I believe under the rules, procedures and etiquette of the House, that the press is to have access to the gallery here in the House. I am concerned that the doors may be locked. I see only one person in the press gallery today. I think people all over the country have a right to know that the press has access to the Chamber to cover the travesty of democracy and the arrogance of power that is going on here today. I would ask the Parliamentarian and the Sergeant at Arms to be sure that the press gallery doors are unlocked so that the press might have access to these terrible proceedings wrought on the House floor by the majority.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this good bill. This is a bill that will help the quality of life for both our service members and their families. It is a bill for the troops. It is a bill for their families. I know that as a Nation and as a Congress we have ongoing disagreements and discussions about our national security policy, about Iraq, about issues all around the world; but while we are having that debate and in this discussion, this bill was put together that I think accounts for the unanimous support of the committee, 60 to zero, with people who are on different sides of these many issues, because it is a bill for the troops and their families. I wish it could have been a better bill, and I think it could have been a better process had we, as a House, today voted to let more than 100 Members have amendments on the floor that were denied the right to be heard. But I do appreciate the work of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the committee. I know it is a good process when the chairman of the committee does not win all of his amendments during the committee process this year. I think we had a full and vigorous debate. Of course, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member. It is a bill for the troops. It will provide a 3.5 percent pay raise for the troops, which is a half percent more than the average private sector pay increase. It also eliminates out-of-pocket housing costs for service members and their families. It provides a permanent increase in imminent danger pay and family separation allowance, as well as increases the hardship duty pay from $300 to $750. It includes providing active duty tuition assistance to Reservists who are mobilized, and it also makes permanent the TRICARE coverage for mobilized Reservists 90 days prior to activation and 180 days of transitional assistance following their separation from service. I was also glad to see the great work done by the committee on the survivors benefits program. I would like to acknowledge two Members who are not members of our committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) who had the bill's sponsor to change the survivors benefit program, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a former member of the committee, who also did good work on advocating on behalf of changing that program. I think that will help a lot of spouses of military retirees who have lost their mate. It is a very important issue. Finally, I want to say in conclusion, I do support this bill; however, I think we should have allowed more time and had more amendments. It is particularly distressing on a committee in which we talk about our bipartisanship, that some of the most senior and experienced members, such as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and his recommendations for amendments were denied an opportunity. We had a bipartisan amendment. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who had an amendment, both senior Members, not of the committee but of this Congress, were denied a right to be heard on the House floor today and tomorrow on their amendment. It would have been a better process and a better bill if that had gone forward. But I do support the bill and urge other Members to do so also.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and a Vietnam veteran helicopter crew chief.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 386 introduced by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and my colleague on the Committee on Armed Services; and I commend her on your efforts to recognize the 50th anniversary of the United States Air Force Academy. On April 1, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into the law a bill that established the United States Air Force Academy; and this Thursday, April 1, 2004, the Nation will recognize the 50th anniversary of this Academy and its efforts to inspire and develop outstanding young men and women as Air Force officers. However, the history of the Academy began long before the bill was signed by President Eisenhower. One of the first to recognize the need and to advocate for an air service academy was Brigadier General Billy Mitchell, often considered to be the father of the United States Air Force. He was an outspoken advocate of strategic air power, and he had attempted to establish an air school for many years. Progress on the Air Force Academy began in 1949 when Secretary of Defense James Forrestal established a board of military and civilian educators to recommend a general system of education for the services. The board, which was headed by Dwight D. Eisenhower, then president of Colombia University, and Robert L. Stearns, then president of the University of Colorado, recommended that an Air Force Academy be established; and this was done in 1954 under President Eisenhower's signature. The Academy's commitment to excellence began with its first class in July of 1955, which was comprised of 306 men who lived in temporary facilities at Lowry Air Force Base in Denver, Colorado. Lieutenant General Hubert R. Harmon, recalled from retirement, became the first superintendent. The Cadet Wing moved to its current location 3 years later in 1958, and the first class graduated in 1959. In 1964, the academies were allowed to nearly double their enrollment to over 4,400 cadets. In 1976, the first class of women was allowed to attend the service academies, including the Air Force Academy. Since then, more than 35,000 cadets have graduated from the Air Force Academy, including 196 international cadets. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) recognized several of the scholarly attributes of cadet graduates, including 32 cadets who have been selected as Rhodes Scholars. I want to call attention to the fact that one of those is my colleague, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who was also a Rhodes Scholar. I also want to recognize 31 cadets have accepted Fulbright-Hays scholarships. Probably even more importantly, Air Force cadet graduates are not only accomplished scholars but have also distinguished themselves on the battlefield. One hundred and twenty-nine graduates have been killed in combat; 36 graduates were prisoners of war; two were combat aces; and one academy graduate, Captain Lance P. Sijan, received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his extraordinary heroism in Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the United States Air Force Academy on its 50th anniversary and recognize the outstanding service that these graduates have provided to our country's defense. Once again, Mr. Speaker, let me thank my very special colleague, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), for her efforts to bring this bill forward as an Air Force Academy graduate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have no further speakers and would close if it is appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I think this must be a special day for the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) today, as an Air Force Academy graduate, to be able to carry this bill on the House floor commending the 50th anniversary of the Air Force Academy; and it is a pleasure to be here with her. I recognize the strong tradition of service that the Air Force Academy has had to this country, and I am proud to support and endorse this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SNYDER

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

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2057, which would retroactively reimburse 38,000 service members for their travel expenses incurred while on R&R, rest and recuperation leave. I would like to recognize and commend the majority for bringing this bill to the floor. Last year, the United States Army issued a policy that will require both Active and Reserve forces to spend one year boots on the ground overseas. To improve morale and address the concerns expressed by commanders and troops in the field, the Department of Defense established a rest and recuperation program for those service members with 12-months tours. Initially, the program allowed service members to travel from Kuwait to Germany and Baltimore, Maryland. Subsequently, they expanded that to two other airports, one in Atlanta and one in Dallas; and from these airports service members were then required to pay for their continued travel home. Subsequent to this, the Department of Defense also established a similar program for our fine men and women on duty as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. As part of this program, these service members were required to pay for the continued flight to their final destination, to their home. Last year, Congress recognized the unfair burden this policy placed on service members and sought to rectify it. However, in the course of doing that, the new benefit did not really kick in with the regulations until December 19, 2003. This was 3 months after the program started. So we have approximately 38,000 troops who had to pay for their own travel expenses from their points of arrival in the United States to home. This amounts to about $13 million. If my math is correct, that is an average of about $342 for each one of those service members. This is a small price to pay to restore fairness amongst the troops for this very important moral effort.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) for his fine words and support. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

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

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) for his work on behalf of this bill; along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), and the gentleman from Missouri (Ranking Member Skelton) also for their fine work. I think this is a fine bill that will be much appreciated by our men and women in uniform and their families.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also rise in support of H.R. 3104, which requires the President to establish separate campaign medals for servicemembers who participate in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and then a separate medal for Operation Iraqi Freedom. I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for the work he has done on this bill. As a career military officer, he recognizes the importance of providing proper recognition to our men and women in uniform. The bill we originally introduced allowed members of the armed services to receive separate campaign medals for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. As amended on the floor today, it also includes all members of uniformed services. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, the intent of our bill is not to replace the administration's Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, nor the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, rather, to provide separate campaign medals to recognize folks who have participated in the Iraq campaign and in the Afghanistan campaign. This follows the pattern that this country has done before in honoring its men and women in uniform. For example, we have a World War II Victory Medal, but then we also had separate theater campaign medals, such as the Asiatic Pacific Campaign Medal; and this bill leaves the regulations and eligibility for these two medals to be determined by the President and the Department of Defense. One of the issues that has come up is, well, who is the responsible party for establishing these kinds of medals? In fact, Congress has often taken the lead to do that. I would like to go through some of these bills, if I might. The battle of Manila Bay Medal, also called the Dewey Medal, was established by Congress in 1898. The Spanish War Medal authorized by Congress in 1918; the Mexican Border Service Medal authorized by Congress in 1918; the Philippine Congressional Medal authorized by Congress in 1906; the World War I Victory Medal in 1919, authorized by Congress; the Army Occupation of Germany, World War I, authorized by Congress in 1941; the Spanish Campaign Medal authorized by Congress in 1905; the World War II Victory Medal authorized by Congress in 1945; the Prisoner of War Medal authorized by Congress in 1985; the Medal for Humane Action also known as the Berlin Airlift authorized by Congress in 1949. I would like to recognize another one too. In 1956, the Congress authorized the Civil War Campaign Medal, and the reason it was taken up in 1956, so many years after the Civil War, is because the Army had had a Civil War campaign badge, but a judge advocate general in the Army in 1905 thought that the Army probably did not have the authority, that only Congress had the authority to do a campaign medal, and Congress rectified this in 1956 by authorizing the Civil War Campaign Medal. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe the record is very clear that Congress not only has the authority to do this but, in fact, that has been the history of establishment of a lot of our medals. I would like to recognize too the leadership of the Committee on Armed Services who helped bring this bill forward. The gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) has been a forceful advocate, both publicly and privately, in support of this bill, as has the gentleman from Missouri (Ranking Member Skelton). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) for her leadership on this bill. She has been working on this issue for some time, also. I neglected to mention the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) who has his own Vietnam Service Campaign Medal for his work as a helicopter crew chief and is now a fine member of the Committee on Armed Services. And I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for his work. Let me repeat in closing that those of us who have worked on this bill, have sponsored and cosponsored this bill, do not at all intend this as a replacement for the global war on terrorism service medals and expeditionary medals. We support those medals. What we think, though, is we need to recognize that contribution, that camaraderie that comes from our men and women in uniform that are serving in Iraq so they can have their own campaign medal and our men and women in Afghanistan so they can have their own campaign medal in addition to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. So I urge support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

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

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I am a middle-aged man; and as a man and as a family doctor, I have known for years that my number one health risk is cardiovascular disease. Blood vessel disease, heart disease and strokes, that is what we mean by cardiovascular disease. But, in fact, heart disease takes the lives of more women than men. A recent American Heart Association survey showed that only 13 percent of American women realize that cardiovascular disease, heart disease and strokes is their number one health threat. The reality is that nearly 500,000 American women die each year from cardiovascular disease; and, in fact, more women die of cardiovascular disease, heart disease and stroke, than the next seven causes of death, including cancer. Nearly twice as many women in the United States die from heart disease and stroke than from all forms of cancers, including breast cancer. I have a picture of several of our friends and colleagues from on the Hill, staffers that work for various folks. If you are a young woman, as Sarah is on my staff, over your lifetime, her number one risk for death is from heart disease and stroke. If you are a middle-aged women, your number one cause of death is heart disease and stroke. If you are an African American woman, as Stacie is, your number one cause of death is heart disease and stroke. And, in fact, more African American women by percentage die of heart disease and stroke than Caucasian. Again, if you are a young woman, over your lifetime, your number one cause of death is heart disease and stroke. If you are Hispanic, your number one cause of death over your lifetime is heart disease and stroke. So what do you do about this? We spend a lot of time on this House floor talking and worrying about health policy. We talk about the insured and how do we take care of our men and women in uniform and their health care needs, what to do about the Veterans Administration and meeting the needs of veterans; but the reality is for most of us, a lot of what we can do in our health, we control. So you look at the risk factors. Women smoke too much. Women are like men, they smoke too much, they are too inactive, do not pay enough attention to their blood pressure and diet; and they do not do a good enough job of diagnosing and controlling diabetes. Those are the main risk factors for heart disease. What this resolution is about, it does not do anything. This is a sense of the House. This does not change law. What it does is give us a chance as Members to talk to women and Americans about this very real risk. First Lady Laura Bush has been doing that. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute has been doing that. What we can now do with this resolution is educate our constituents back home, women, that their number one health threat is heart disease and stroke. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the ranking member, for bringing this resolution to the floor.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Total Force I rise in support of this conference report. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for his leadership and also to thank the committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skeleton), for their many years and efforts that has resulted once again in a conference agreement coming to the floor. This bill continues several years of improvements to quality of life programs for our military personnel, retirees, and their families. We provided a targeted pay raise of up to 3.7 percent and additional targeted pay increases for mid-career and senior enlisted personnel. We fixed a problem for our reservists who were called up after September 11 and were forced to pay their lodging expenses when they went home on leave. We extended the increase in imminent danger pay to $225 and family separation allowance to $250 until the end of next year. Our service members are still in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan and face months of separation from their loved ones. These increases are necessary and deserved. We increased access to TRICARE benefits for reservists and their families. We expanded commissary access to selected reservists and Reserve retirees under 60. We allow individuals who volunteer to defend our Nation but are not U.S. citizens to become naturalized after 1 year of service. We also allow their families to become naturalized if a service member is killed in action. I am disappointed that the committee was not able to include full concurrent receipt. Approximately 60 percent of Arkansas disabled veterans who are currently penalized by current law will not be helped by this compromise. We should do better. While I am supporting of this bill, the process that brought us here is not good. The bipartisanship for which our committee has been known is slowly vanishing. The responsibility to provide for our Nation's defense and security is an area in which partisanship should be minimized, particularly at a time of war. Sadly, it is becoming clear that this partisanship is becoming the norm in the way we conduct business. Both Democrats and Republicans have a duty and obligation to protect our citizens and the freedom Americans enjoy. We need to work together in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that our rights and freedoms are preserved for future generations.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, Stephen Kinzer, in his book, ``All the Shah's Men,'' describes the events of the overthrow of the Iranian Government in 1953 in a coup staged by the United States and the British. President Truman did not support overthrowing the government of Prime Minister Mossadeq. In this picture taken in 1951 here in Washington, D.C., you can see his relationship with Mossadeq, who he respected as a nationalist. However, the Eisenhower government came in, President Eisenhower supported the coup, and the government was overthrown in 1953. I thought of these events on hearing the President's speech yesterday calling for the spread of democracy in the Middle East. Stephen Kinzer in his interviews with Iranians asked them in the past what they had thought of American overtures talking about democracy in Iran, and their response was we had a democracy, but you Americans overthrew it. We all support democracy and democratic ideals, but when it comes to remaking societies, Mr. Speaker, we should approach this with humility, realism, and a sense of history.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I, too, salute the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his work on this bill. I was recently, several weeks ago, out at Bethesda Hospital visiting some of our wounded there but also some young Marines who got malaria while they were in Sierra Leone. I worked in Sierra Leone in the past myself as a doctor years ago and have an interest in malaria. I ran into the gentleman from Florida's (Chairman Young) wife out there during her good work in the halls of Bethesda Hospital, so I know he and she are both very much in touch with our men and women in the military who end up in the hospital. I think the point has been well made that what may look good on paper in terms of accounting, that if we have military people getting a subsistent amount of money each month to help cover room and board and if they are in a place where they are getting free room and board, then let us do a deduction because they are getting that free room and board for that time where they are in a government facility. It makes no sense, though, in terms of public policy, when that facility is a hospital; and we all know that when we have someone in a hospital. We all know that when we have someone in a hospital, the family incurs additional expenses from phone calls and travel and transportation and running to the pharmacy to pick up shampoo that they forgot and all those kinds of things; and for these folks in the future that we are going to prevent this from happening to, they do not need that kind of hassle. So I applaud the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for bringing this bill forward today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).