Vic Snyder

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I once again want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for their work on this bill. I look forward to seeing this become a permanent portion of the law and deal with this problem once and for all. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, today this House will continue its discussion of the repeal of the estate tax, the so-called ``death tax.'' But, in fact, this bill is a continuation of policies that will hurt living Americans. Let me give one example. From this month's magazine back home, ``Aging Arkansas,'' referring to the last tax cut passed by this House: ``Tax cut bleeds seniors. Yet Republican leaders come forward once again to shrink, wither and dry up government.'' And what is government? It is what this article talks about, programs that older Americans have taken for granted. Today in Arkansas, a few of the wealthiest Americans will benefit from this repeal of the estate tax, but tens of thousands of other Arkansan seniors will be hurt.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, hopefully this week the House will correct an error in the most recently signed tax cut bill and extend the tax credit to literally hundreds of thousands of American families who do not qualify under the act that was signed by the President. One of the arguments that has been used against extending this tax credit for children to lower-income people is that they do not pay enough taxes. This is the most recent payroll stub from one of my Little Rock residents, a single mom with two children. She works over 40 hours a week as a certified nursing assistant at a State facility. She pays $51.80 so far this year in Federal taxes. Look at the next two lines. She pays Social Security tax, a Federal tax. She pays her Medicare tax. A Federal tax. She pays State taxes. She pays State excise tax. She pays State sales tax. These people pay taxes. They have children. They deserve to get the benefit of this tax cut also. Please vote for a clean version of the extension of this child tax credit.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here today to debate a constitutional amendment that would restrict the right of an American to make a foolish, foolish mistake with his own property. My primary objection to this amendment is that it will give government a tool with which to prosecute Americans with minority views, particularly at times of great national division, behavior that would have been perceived as patriotic if done by the majority. Unfortunately, our history has abundant examples of patriotism being used to hurt those who express views in disagreement with that of the majority. Let me share with you some news stories taken from the New York Times in years of great strife in America. The first one I would like to read is from April 7, 1917, 1917, headline: ``Diners Resent Slight to the Anthem. Attack a Man and Two Women Who Refuse to Stand When It Is Played. There was much excitement in the main dining room at Rectors last night following the playing of the Star Spangled Banner. Frederick Boyd, a former reporter on the New York Call, a Socialist newspaper, was dining with Miss Jessie Ashley and Miss May Towle, both lawyers and suffragists. The three, alone of those in the room, remained seated. There were quiet, then loud and vehement protests, but they kept their chairs. ``The angry diners surrounded Boyd and the two women and blows were struck back and forth, the women fighting valiantly to defend Boyd. He cried out he was an Englishman and did not have to get up, but the crowd would not listen to explanation. Boyd was severely beaten when the head waiter succeeded in reaching his side. Other waiters closed in and the fray was stopped. ``The guests insisted upon the ejection of Boyd and his companions and they were asked to leave. They refused to do so, and they were escorted to the street and turned over to a policeman who took Boyd to the West 47th Street Station, charged with disorderly conduct. ``Before the magistrate, Boyd repeated that he did not have to rise at the playing of the National Anthem, but the court told him that while there was no legal obligation, it was neither prudent nor courteous not to do so in these tense times, and he was found guilty of disorderly conduct and released on suspended sentence.'' Another one, July 2, 1917, headline: ``Boston Peace Parade Mobbed. Soldiers and Sailors Break Up Socialist Demonstration and Rescue Flag. Socialist Headquarters Ransacked and Contents Burned, Many Arrests for Fighting. ``Riotous scenes attended a Socialist parade today which was announced as a peace demonstration. The ranks of the marchers were broken up by self-organized squads of uniformed soldiers and sailors. Red flags and banners bearing socialistic mottos were trampled on, and literature and furnishings in the Socialist headquarters in Park Square were thrown into the street and burned. ``At Scollay Square there was a similar scene. The American flag at the head of the line was seized by the attacking party and the band, which had been playing `The Marseillaise' with some interruptions, was forced to play `The Star Spangled Banner' while cheers were given for the flag.'' The last one, from March 26, 1918. ``Pro-Germans Mobbed in Middle West. Disturbances Start in Ohio and are Renewed in Illinois. Woman among Victims. ``Five businessmen of Delphos, a German settlement in western Allen County near here, accused of pro-Germanism, were hunted out by a volunteer vigilance committee of 400 men and 50 women of the town, taken into a brilliantly lit downtown street and forced to kiss the American flag tonight under pain of being hanged from nearby telephone poles.'' What do these old stories from the New York Times have to do with this very important and heartfelt debate today? The decision we make today, it seems to me, is a balancing, a weighing of what best preserves freedom for Americans. There may well be a decrease in public deliberate incidents of flag desecration, acts that we all deplore, if this amendment becomes part of our Constitution. On the other side of our ledger, if this amendment becomes part of our Constitution, in my opinion, it will become a constitutionally sanctioned tool for the majority to tyrannize the minority. As evidenced by these news stories from a time of great divisiveness in our Nation's history, government, which ultimately is human beings with all of our strengths and weaknesses, will use this amendment to question the patriotism of vocal minorities, will use it to find excuses to legally attack demonstrations which utilize the flag in an otherwise appropriate manner. Let me give an example. I was at a rural county fair in Arkansas several years ago, and a group had a booth with a great patriotic display in addition to handouts and signs. They had laid across the table like a tablecloth an American flag. I knew these people thought this to be a very patriotic part of the display. I watched as one of the volunteers sat on the table, oblivious to the fact he was sitting on our American flag. His action was a completely innocent mistake, and he did not realize such behavior is inconsistent with good flag etiquette. I believe that had this group been a fringe group, those with views contrary to the great majority, and should we have laws prohibiting physical desecration of the flag, such an action as I described would not be excused as an innocent mistake. Instead, a minority group might be prosecuted, out of anger, out of disgust, but make no mistake, the motivation for such a prosecution would be that they hold a minority view. Mr. Speaker, I do not think our Constitution will be improved nor our freedoms protected by placing within it enhanced opportunity for minority views to be legally attacked, ostensibly because of their misuse of the flag, but in reality because of views that many consider out of the mainstream. I urge a ``no'' vote on the proposed amendment, and for the same reasons, a ``no'' vote on the substitute.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the presence of our pages here today. I have a page from my district, Maggie Hobson, and their last day is June 6. So over the next couple of weeks if the Members have not said hello to them and thanked them, this would be a great time to do it. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), our subcommittee chairman, for his leadership in defense issues. It has been a pleasure working with him and other members of the Subcommittee on Total Force. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member, for their continued leadership. While I support and hope to support H.R. 1588 in its final form, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, I am very disappointed in the manner in which this bill was brought to the floor. We have had many contentious issues come before the Congress on defense over the years, but we have usually approached these in a deliberate and thoughtful process which allowed for the consideration of many different viewpoints both for and against, helping develop a sound and thoughtful final product. But the committee broke with that tradition this year and included provisions that made wholesale changes to current systems without benefit of thorough hearings or in-depth analysis of the information and proposals that were provided by the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, the decision to proceed on this path has distracted from the numerous very good provisions that were included that improved the quality of life for our military personnel, retirees, and their families: an average 4.1 percent pay raise, a reduction in out-of- pocket housing expenses, equity in certain reserve hazard pays, and improvements to the military healthcare system. Mr. Chairman, there are items in this bill that are excellent, but there are also items in this bill that should have had greater thought and reflection. I hope that we will continue our efforts to improve and strengthen this bill on the floor over the next 2 days. We are all proud of our men and women and their service to our country. Surely we can produce a defense authorization bill that all of us, Americans all, Democrats and Republicans, can be proud of. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) in his opening statement talked about the professionalism of our military and how well they performed in Iraq, and I concur in his assessment, and he also said it is now our turn. But it is also our turn to work together, Americans all, on this product; and that has not occurred. I also hope after the conclusion of this bill that we will do a very good job of providing oversight in Iraq and Afghanistan because we must succeed in the peace in those two countries.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, during our Easter recess, we will pass the anniversary of a tragic historic event in America. We are all familiar with the sinking of the Titanic and its loss of 1,522 lives. In fact the greatest American maritime disaster, April 27, 1865, was the sinking of the Sultana in a photograph here shown loaded with former POWs on the Mississippi River. One of the boilers on the Sultana blew, it sank and lost probably 1,800 mostly Union soldiers that had been released from prisoner of war camps deep in the South. This tragedy was combined with illegality. This ship was supposed to hold less than 400 people. It was overloaded in violation of law. It pushed out of the Mississippi River at 2 a.m., a boiler blew, it caught on fire as shown in this drawing, and experienced tremendous winds shortly thereafter. Here we can see the thing flips around and the fire pushes people off the other end of the boat. These men were all emaciated former POWs. It was with great, great loss of life. There are two books on the subject, ``Disaster on the Mississippi'' and ``The Sultana Tragedy.'' Its anniversary was April 27, 1865.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this resolution being brought to the House floor today. April 10, 1963, marks the 40th anniversary for the loss of the Thresher and brings home once again the dangers inherent in military service, particularly with regard to new technology. Our edge militarily in America has been and will continue to be our technology, but with new technology comes unexpected risks; and that is what was seen with the Thresher. A word about nuclear-powered submarines, and that is that not only did these men demonstrate courage, but also the very nature of their work demonstrates intelligence, high levels of education, long-term commitments to the submarine service and to the nuclear force. We also have to recognize the dedication and perseverance of their family members who have to share with them their commitment to nuclear submarines. So today we pay tribute to the 129 men, including 17 civilians, who were lost 40 years ago and now rest at 8,400 feet in the ocean. I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) for bringing this resolution.

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

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, almost 20 years ago I lived and worked in Sierra Leone for 6 months. I was a doctor at a Catholic mission hospital. At that time, Sierra Leone was poor and unhealthy with a life expectancy of 42 years. It was inefficient with a low level of corruption, but it was not dangerous. And then along came these conflict diamonds, blood diamonds, which stimulated greed and provided purchasing power for the weapons and drugs that were used in this very, very brutal war. As the international community responded to the war in Sierra Leone, a lot of Americans may ask themselves, What does that have to do with me? What is wrong with having a cheaper supply of diamonds? Sierra Leone is so far away. Mr. Speaker, drying up the cash that supports terrorism is a very important part of the war on terrorism; but we can freeze all of the bank accounts we want and stop the cash transfers, but somebody can take a sock full of illegal diamonds, put it in their pocket, walk onto a plane, and they have an ability to move wealth all over the world, to bribe and buy weaponry and buy explosives. This bill is an important part of our national security, not just in Africa. Rats have a way of finding a hole in the house, and one of the things that I like about this bill today is that it has the vigilance that legislation needs. It has reporting requirements so we can monitor the success and failures in this bill, and I hope that we will respond in a rapid manner should we see we have some gaps. I encourage a strong vote of support for the Clean Diamond Trade Act.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty).

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise and join my colleagues in support of House Resolution 62, which recognizes the courage and sacrifices of American prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict and calls for a full accounting of those who remain unaccounted for from the Vietnam conflict. Thirty years ago today the first group of American prisoners of war was officially released from captivity in Vietnam. Operation Homecoming began on February 12, 1973; and the last repatriation occurred on April 1, 1973. Who can forget those dramatic news photographs of families being reunited with their POWs, their loved ones. In less than 2 months, over 500 Americans returned to the United States. During the Vietnam War, over 700 American military personnel were taken prisoner by enemy forces. The first prisoner of war in the Southeast Asia conflict occurred in Laos on March 23, 1961. For some like Floyd Thompson, who was the longest held POW, it would be nearly a decade before his family saw him again. Many were held in infamous prison facilities, such as the Hoa Lo prison, which was referred to by the prisoners as the Hanoi Hilton. Many Members of the House have visited the Hanoi Hilton. On January 23, 1973, the United States and North Vietnam agreed to a cease fire and a return of the prisoners of war. Operation Homecoming resulted in the release and return of 591 Americans. One of the prisoners held, and the one we particularly honor today, was then-Major Sam Johnson of the United States Air Force, now a Member of Congress from Texas' third district. He was shot down on April 16, 1966, while flying his 25th mission over Vietnam. He was labeled a die-hard resister and spent the majority of his time as a prisoner of war in solitary confinement. During his captivity, Sam demonstrated an unshakeable devotion to duty, honor, and country. He retired from the Air Force with the grade of colonel in 1979. It is clearly an honor and privilege to serve with Sam in the House of Representatives. My colleague mentioned the book that Sam wrote. It is called ``Captive Warrior: A Viet Nam POW Story.'' This is a young-looking version of Congressman Johnson here on the front, and I will take the liberty of at least plugging the book. Texas A&M University Press is where I got my copy, and like my preceding colleague, it is an unadulterated and captivating version of what the life of these men was like in captivity. Back home, Madam Speaker, I do a talk primarily in schools. I call it my congressional heroes speech in which I have blown up photos of Members of Congress and talk about a 1-, 2-, or 3-minute summary of their life. One of the people I talk about is Floyd Spence, our great and beloved chairman, now passed away, and his courage in the face of having an organ transplant, one of the first in the country that had, I believe, a lung transplant. One of the people I talk about is Sam, and I make the point that Sam and I often disagree on political issues on the floor of this House. And when you see those votes where it is 220 to 190, well, I am usually in the 190 and he is in the 220; but the differences in policy and politics does not change the fact that Sam Johnson is truly one of America's heroes and I will continue to talk about him. I also mention a former colleague of ours, Pete Peterson from Florida, who was also a prisoner of war during the Vietnam conflict, shot down on September 10, 1966. He also had a distinguished career in the Air Force and retired as a colonel in 1981. He left Congress and served with distinction as our Nation's first ambassador to Vietnam following the Vietnam conflict. I met with him in Hanoi as many Members did, and he is also a very fine American. Also a note, Madam Speaker, about civilians. We recognize the sacrifices and courage of our servicemembers who were held as POWs. Twenty-five civilians were also released as prisoners of war during Operation Homecoming. Twelve were released prior to the operation and four escaped. Of the 97 individuals listed by the services that were not returned during Operation Homecoming, 80 were servicemembers but 17 were civilians. Madam Speaker, recent world events remind us that our freedoms are not free. Men and women in uniform volunteer to protect the liberties and ideals that we hold dear, but there are risks. In our recognition today of our colleague, Congressman Sam Johnson, and his former colleagues that served as POWs, once again brings home the sacrifices that are made. We use Sam today as our symbol of all the POWs from that conflict, and we salute them today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, I have no speakers, and I yield 4 minutes of our time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) to use as he sees fit.

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I might, reference was made earlier to Sam's wife. I know this is a very small book, but I have here a picture of Shirley and Sam from 1952, and our staff member Debra Wada says Sam is even better looking today than he was here in 1952. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, I yield whatever time I have remaining to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for purposes of control.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, and also want to add my accolades to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). He was the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I do want to express some dissatisfaction with the process here tonight that we have been dealt. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) mentioned the problems of doing this with a suspension bill, which means a very limited time period for debate. I am more concerned about the notification. I found out about this in the airport late this afternoon that this bill was going to be coming up tonight, when we had been told for several weeks that the conference reports would be coming up on Wednesday or Thursday. I understand we are at the end of the session in a lame duck and we are not sure how long we are going to be here, but democracy was not intended to be an efficient process, and sometimes we can be too efficient. I think there is a substantial number of Members that do not know that this debate is going on tonight. Like many Members, I spent Veterans Day at events the last couple of days and through the weekend, and a lot of veterans came up to me and asked about the issue of concurrent receipt and why the President threatened to veto it and why the House leadership did not want to do the bill before the election. I would have liked to have taken the language that is in the bill that we are voting on tonight and send to my veterans back home and have them comment on it before we come to the floor today. But, unfortunately, that did not occur. I would hope that we would have a process more in accord with the open kind of notification that a democracy really demands. I rise in support of the bill and appreciate all of the work that the staff and Members have put into this, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for stepping in in the absence of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Those of us that support this amendment do not believe that we are undercutting the President or somehow placing handcuffs on him. What, in fact, we believe we are doing is responding to the great common sense of the American people, the kind of discussions we all have at home and Americans are having all over the country in which they see a difference in the factual situations between America going in as an international body in cooperation with the United Nations versus America having to go it alone because the international community does not want to be with us. There are differences in those two scenarios, and the differences have different ramifications for the future of America's national security. In fact, what the Spratt amendment does is give additional powers to the President not in the Constitution. It gives him the power to schedule this vote through an expedited process. I think the Spratt amendment in fact is the kind of approach that the American people want us to take, to act in concert with the international community and, if that is not successful, to come back and expedite a way for a reevaluation by their elected representatives as expected by the Constitution.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, as one of the 435 Members of this House, I have found this issue facing us for the last several weeks and months just one of those visceral, gut issues that just tears us up. I have my space shuttle tie on this morning. I got up this morning and wore it because the space shuttle is way there, and right now every 90 minutes they are looking at this magnificent globe and they are seeing this beautiful Earth. We are down here debating about the ugliness; they are up there seeing the beauty. It tears me up, and I know it tears up all Americans as we are debating this. I have to take some reaction with the previous speaker. Just because I disagree with the resolution on the floor does not mean I have my eyes closed, and it does not mean I am sitting on my hands. It may mean that I have a different and better approach, and we would do better to listen to each other than to accuse folks of being blinded and somehow not seeing the world as it is. The very process that we have set up here, in which we divide time between yes and no and yes and no, I think there are a lot of people in this House that have a lot of questions, and a lot of questions are being asked by people who are already staking out a position. Even those of us who have decided have a lot of questions about what is happening. We all want to be loyal to our President. That is not an issue. I know that my Republican friends have had their leadership come and say, we have to be loyal to our President. He is all our President. We all want him to do well. The issue is, how can we best help our President, George W. Bush, do well? I will tell the Members one thing, overstatements do not help. Comparing, on one side, Saddam Hussein or Iraq to Nazi Germany, or on the other side comparing Saddam Hussein to Vietnam, they do not help. This is a peculiar situation facing the world now, and we had better deal with it, recognizing it is a peculiar situation never before faced in the world. We all have proof Saddam is a bad guy; that is not the issue. The issue is, how do we approach this particular bad guy at this moment in history? We had better approach this with some humility. This Congress has done a lousy job of predicting budget surpluses and deficits in our own Congress for 1 year, and yet we are now making predictions on both sides about what the world will look like if we do or do not take certain actions. We had better approach this with a great deal of humility about our ability to predict future events. One thing that I have done, as a lot of Members have in the last few months, is try to spend time with as many military officers as I can. A lot of them are retired. There are a lot of doubts being expressed by people who have retired from the military. The Philadelphia Enquirer has a story today: ``Officials' Private Doubts on Iraq War. Some military intelligence and diplomatic sources say hawks are overstating the danger that Baghdad poses,'' talking about doubts being expressed by those in the military. We still have a couple of days left. I would encourage the Members who are still asking those questions to take the time to sit down with retired military or even their close friends within the military and just say, in complete and honest candor, what do you think? Maybe that will help resolve some of those questions. The United Nations, those of us who think that the United Nations would be helpful in this process are not turning over the national security to the United Nations, but it is a different fact situation for this Congress and for the American people if we go alone or if we go with the United Nations. That is not an unreasonable question to ask: Is it different if the United States goes alone? Is it different if the United States does it with the United Nations? I am one of those who thinks that we would be much stronger in the future if we go with the United Nations. It does not mean I am turning over the national security to the United Nations. Is there anything wrong with the Congress deciding this very specific fact situation several weeks or months from now if the President decides we are going to have to go alone in this business without the United Nations? That is a different fact situation than if the United Nations is behind us. It does not mean we are turning over the national security to the U.N. Resentment. I do not know how we can predict these future events, but the resentment of the Arab world, I just talked with General Zinni a few days ago, is as great as he has ever seen. If we mishandle the situation, it will be even greater. I would encourage Members to be analyzing this situation: What do our words and actions do for the next few years with our relationships with Arab countries? I think our number one strategic goal and interest in the Middle East is to solve the security issues for the Israelis and Palestinians, even if it means 40,000 or 50,000 U.S. troops stationed there for years. What best helps that situation to be resolved? I think a lot of Members are saying that taking out Saddam Hussein may help, but we can sure come up with scenarios that it may not help guarantee the security of Israel and a peaceful Palestinian state. The commitment to rebuild, I was talking to one of my colleagues in Arkansas, talking about our commitment to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. He said we have never fulfilled our commitment to rebuild the Delta after the Civil War. Why do we think we may actually follow through with our commitment to rebuild Iraq and rebuild democracy in Iraq? It is a very important issue. Probably the overriding issue for me is war should only be used as a last resort. So the overriding question for me, in addition to what best helps reduce the risks of something happening to Americans, is have we reached the point where this is the last resort? I do not think we have reached that point. The President said last night that we may not have to go to war. Those of us who very much are loyal to our President are saying, Mr. President, you would get a bigger vote for your resolution if you would say, first let me try it at the United Nations. If I am not successful, then I will come back to you, because then I would know that war unilaterally for America is the last resort. But we are not at that point today. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has offered an amendment with several of us that I think resolves a lot of these issues. It will get a bigger vote, if it was the base resolution, it would have a larger vote if the President would support it than the underlying resolution. It would send a strong signal to the international community. It would say to the President, if you get the U.N. behind you in a way that you find satisfactory, you are authorized to use force; however, if you are not successful, please come back and let the Congress analyze the fact situation representing the American people at that time, and let us together decide what is best with the authorization of force in this very difficult world that we face today. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues who care so much about these issues.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I heard a commentator make the statement that somehow Congress is dragging their feet on these issues because we cannot face the possibility of our own demise. I do not agree with that statement at all. I think that Members of Congress are very much aware of the potential risks and threats out there, but that it is a complicated topic. One of the complications is that we work in a Federal system with both State responsibilities and Federal responsibilities. To me, the number one issue is how in all of this do we protect the essence of democracy; and to me, the essence of democracy is the right of a free people to be governed, to be governed by those whom they elect and have the right to vote on. We summarize that by calling this ``The People's House,'' and I do not think in any way should we be supportive of any kind of constitutional amendment that would turn the people's House into the ``Appointeds' House.'' That would be a very tragic outcome to September 11. The Federal issue here is that elections are State responsibilities, and we know that there is a tremendous amount of variety from State to State and also that there is too much time in an emergency situation in some, in a lot, of the State laws. Patsy Mink has been referred to, our colleague who tragically passed away over the weekend; and it is my understanding that it may take three special elections to finally replace her. Also, Oregon does their elections by mail, and every State deals with the issue of absentee ballots overseas and locally differently. There is a lot of complexity to this. Our message to the States today is please look at your election laws and figure out a way that you can be responsive should this terrible tragedy occur. To me, there are two scenarios that States ought to look at. The first one is what has been talked about today by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and others: What if we had a massive loss of life of Members of the U.S. House here? That is what has driven this issue. But there also is a second issue that States ought to look at. In Arkansas, we have four House Members and two Senators, and it is not uncommon for us to be all in the same place or on the same plane. States ought to look at what should happen if an individual State lost its entire congressional delegation, should that trigger some kind of expedited special elections process. These are not easy questions; they are complicated questions. But they fall under the area of State responsibility, and the resolution today is sending a message to the States that we will be glad to work with you and hope that you will work on these very important issues of expediting special elections at a time of massive loss of life in the U.S. House.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add my voice to those acknowledging the passing several weeks ago of State Senator Jerry Jewell in Arkansas. I served with Senator Jewell from 1991 to 1993 as Congressman Davis noted, who, by the way, is an Arkansas native. He left Arkansas when he was 19, but he has never forgotten where he came from. It was my pleasure also to serve with Senator Jewell in the State Senate. He certainly made history by being the first African American since Reconstruction to be elected to the State Senate. He was the first African American president pro tem and he became acting Governor. In Arkansas the way our Constitution works is if the Governor or lieutenant governor leaves the State, they lose their power as Governor, so Senator Jerry Jewell became acting Governor. He had a very colorful civil rights history. I attended his funeral a couple weeks ago, and Dr. Roosevelt Brown told this story how when they were young men the efforts to try to desegregate a swimming pool during the summertime in Little Rock that basically involved Senator Jewell talking to the young person at the gate and two or three other young African American men running past and jumping in the pool and immediately all the white folks jumping out, the kind of story now that we think is humorous but at the time was deadly serious. It was a sign of his courage that he participated in those kinds of events. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and I want to acknowledge the passing of Senator Jewell, the part of history he played in Arkansas, and the loss to his friends and family.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I have been watching this debate with some interest for the last couple of hours, and I am one of those that is standing forward tonight to say I am a vote in play on this, and I came over here because I find my questions are not being answered by this debate. I am hearing a lot of superlatives about streamlining and coordination and consolidation, how we are not going to let September 11 occur again. We have got to talk about some details about what good specifically is going to occur by making what is going to be a tremendous change that the GAO says is going to take a decade probably to really work out. I am a little bit torn because some of my favorite folks and the folks I respect the most in this body are divided on this, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), some others. But let me just touch on a few points. First of all, Moses did not come down from the mountaintop with gold tablets that said this bill is the answer. There are other potential answers out there. I think we ought to try to make our case why in some detail this is the particular answer, what other option to me would have been to do, what we all thought that was going to happen with Governor Ridge from the get-go, which was he was going to be a close confidant, adviser to the President that could have authority and accountability and with laser-like effort could go into agencies and correct where we saw the problems. We have rejected that, and now we are going with the whole hog kind of thing that I am not sure we need to go that far. The second point I want to make is a funding issue. We had the intelligence bill on the floor yesterday, and several speakers talked about how we are finally going to give additional funding to intelligence, implying that perhaps the problem all along, a lot of it, is we have underfunded intelligence. Part of the concern in this bill is about visas and how they have been given out; and yet the New York Times had an article, front page story on Monday, how we have terrible personnel policies and problems in the State Department. No wonder we are having problems, and yet we have not addressed the personnel issues nor have we addressed the great infrastructure needs, security infrastructure needs of the State Department. Another point, as has been said, we have got to be careful about this bigger-is-better argument. When we look at the challenges back home in Arkansas, I do not find anyone saying let us take all the volunteer fire departments and consolidate them into one big fire department, let us take all the sheriff and police agencies and consolidate them into one that that will help our coordination. We need to be, perhaps, more focused. My final concern is I fear that this could be a distraction. I am just asking these as questions tonight, that in the course of doing this huge consolidation we will forget that we need to focus on the gaps in intelligence and the gaps in specific funding and the gaps in specific coordination personnel needs that may be lost in the massive consolidation that is occurring.