Vic Snyder

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, based on that comment, I am going to vote for the gentleman's bill today. I am very disappointed if we come to the end of this year and I do not have an opportunity to present these ideas on the floor of the House for debate. I have an alternative I filed yesterday, and I encourage Members to take a look at, H. Res. 663, and it says if you register as a former Member to be a registered lobbyist, you do not get the former Members' privileges. Once you no longer are a registered lobbyist you get them back. It seems to be very, very clear, and we do not have to get into this mumbo-jumbo about the gym versus not the gym and all those kinds of things. There is also a section of the bill being proposed today that I think may be a weakening of current law. Under current law, this is what it says currently: The Speaker shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to implement this rule and to ensure its enforcement. That language is being changed under the proposal by Mr. Dreier, and it says, ``The Speaker may promulgate regulations that exempt ceremonial or educational functions from the restrictions of this clause.'' First of all, we will not have the opportunity, I do not believe, to vote on whatever regulation the Speaker puts out. Educational function can be all kinds of things in this body. For example, my fear is that it could be interpreted to be, during the heat of a close vote on a Medicare prescription drug bill, that very well respected former Member Billy Tauzin could be brought over here to meet with 12 undecided Members, not to lobby, but to educate these undecided Members on what this bill means. Somebody is going to have to explain to me, it is very clear from the way of the language of this bill is written, that the intent is that former Members who are registered lobbyists who have a personal or pecuniary interest or are lobbying on behalf of whatever is on the floor of the House would be allowed, under the Speaker's exemption to come and perform an educational function in one of these rooms back here. I do not think that Joe Q. Arkansas is going to have that opportunity. Jane Q. Arkansas is not going to have that opportunity. That is the problem when we pick on one little portion about this. We do not have hearings, we do not have discussion, we do not get people like Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein and the Heritage Foundation to really thrash this stuff through and have the Members thrash it through.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the language of the bill says educational functions. There are already exemptions for ceremonial events, but you are still going to have to explain to me when we have a vote on whatever regulation the Speaker comes out on this, and why Billy Tauzin, coming over here during the heat of a close vote on Medicare, would not be able to have scheduled for him in the cloakroom an educational function to educate undecided Members at 2 a.m. on what a bill means, not to lobby. So I think that is one of the things that people have not talked about, are not aware it is in the bill. I am going to support this bill, but I think this is a very, very poor way, in a rushed manner, in a nontransparent manner to begin this discussion of reform of this body.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for their support and work on this bill. I also want to thank Ranking Member Frank and Chairman Oxley, who were both personally involved in seeing this bill through from the beginning to the end. I had occasion yesterday to call the Central High School National Historic site. The park headquarters is now in an old gas station that was there in 1957. It has been wonderfully restored. There is a new visitor center that is coming over the next couple of years that should be ready for the 50th anniversary also. But the person that answered the phone, I heard this young woman's voice and I knew right away who it was. It was Spirit Trickey, who is a park ranger that works at the site. Her mother was Minnie Jean Brown Trickey, one of the Little Rock Nine. And you talk about having a sense of the change. I have heard Spirit talk before in a speech with tears in her eyes what it has meant for her and her generation, the sacrifices that her mother and the other members of the Little Rock Nine, what their sacrifices meant to her. So we come here today with two purposes. One is to have these coins issued to remember and honor the Little Rock Nine and the sacrifices of them and their families, but also the very practical one, to help raise dollars to tell the story at the site. And as Mr. Renzi pointed out, the Little Rock Central High School is a very fine functioning school district. It is not an abandoned historic site. It is run by the Little Rock School District. And so we had this practical problem that the gentleman iterated about how do you do this match when the dollars are raised through tax dollars. And so I concur with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi). The intent of this legislation is not to change the underlying law. It is to say because of the unique situation that this site can meet its match for this commemorative coin dollar by matching the dollars raised through local and State millage taxes, not Federal dollars, but through local millage elections, which they have done and will continue to do. So I want to thank everyone that participated in this, and again thank Mr. Renzi and Mrs. Maloney for the passage of this bill.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this national defense authorization bill. But while I support this conference report, I am one of many Members very disappointed with the process by which the defense bill has been brought to the floor. Last Thursday the House leadership approved the conferees to the defense authorization bill nearly 3 weeks after the Senate finished consideration of their version of the bill. This 3-week delay denied Members the opportunity to instruct conferees on issues of great importance to them in the defense bill. Members of the committee, particularly our senior members, should have been afforded greater opportunity to participate in informal panel meetings in order to discuss and debate many of the significant provisions that were in either the House or Senate bill. Instead, the decisions that were made on many of the highly contentious issues in the bill were made by less than a handful of Members. The national security of this country benefits from the input of many, not the narrow perspective of a few. A great democracy at war must do better. We, my colleagues, can do better. Democrat and Republican, we can do better. Veteran and nonveteran, we can do better. Senior Member and new Member, we can do better. This bill is a good one. It is a bill that should bring our country and this Congress together united in our support for our fine men and women in uniform, their families and our military retirees but the process the past few weeks has divided us, divided us so deeply that until a few hours ago we weren't even sure we would have a defense bill this year. Our troops deserve better. I hope that beginning in February, the Republican leadership will make a concerted effort to abide by the processes that ensure active and open participation for all Members in future deliberations. Our troops at all times but particularly during a time of war deserve our best democratic deliberations and our united effort. Having made these comments, however, I am aware of the great commitment of Chairman Duncan Hunter and Ranking Member Ike Skelton to our troops and to the national security of our country. I thank Chairman Hunter for his efforts in getting this bill on the floor tonight.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. There is a place for hunting. This place is open to the public. Now, the issue is the process by how we got here to preserve our national parks. The current management company there has introduced elk and deer that are not native to the island. They are threatening the species of plant life that are native to the island. That is why the National Park Service has a plan to phase out the hunting in the year 2011.

Mr. SNYDER. Reclaiming my time, I am opposed to this park being taken from the National Park System. It is part of the National Park System.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, the process for consideration of the Defense bill this year has been a disappointment. Conferees appointed tonight, and the bill will probably come out tomorrow. We have had a very limited opportunity to meet, debate and discuss the bill. It is my understanding, primarily from press reports, that a provision is being considered affecting Channel Islands National Park off the coast of California, specifically Santa Rosa Island, effectively taking control away from the National Park Service. The history of this is that in 1986 our tax dollars spent $30 million to make this island part of the National Park Service. A plan has continued in which a group of business people who were grandfathered in at the time have been managing hunts of trophy elk and deer, literally for thousands of dollars a hunt. This will phase out in the year 2011, five years from now, and this island will be returned to its natural state as part of the National Park Service. Here is the problem. This provision is going to be put in the Defense bill. I called up today to the management company that manages this island. They referred me to a spokesperson. I called that person and the call said I will be out of the office from December 13 until December 19 and I am not available for questions; I do not think I am going to be checking messages. I called back to the management company on the island. They say that is it. So here is the situation. This provision involving Channel Islands National Park was not in the House bill, was not in the Senate bill. The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) was talking about jurisdiction. There is no jurisdiction for this bill. No hearings, no notice, no jurisdiction, no request from the Department of Defense, the National Park Service, the Department of Interior or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Both California senators are opposed. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), the House Member of the district, is opposed, and yet mysteriously this provision is rumored to be appearing in the conference report. It is not the way to be doing business on the Defense bill in a time of war, and I hope that this provision will not be in the conference report when we consider it tomorrow.

Mr. SNYDER. First of all, Mr. Speaker, the allegation that somehow this is a political thing is troubling, given that this provision that is being discussed by the gentleman from Missouri is part of the Senate defense bill. It is why it is on the floor. Our side, regardless of what we think about the specific provision, has every right to have a motion to instruct on a provision that is in one of the two bills. With regard to the provision that is not in either bill, which is the one with regard to the Channel Islands National Park, the allegation that somehow I am against veterans or against veterans with disabilities, by that rationale every national park in the country, we should say, is open for hunting by all veterans with disabilities. The point is, this is a national park. Under the Reagan administration, $30 million was paid to make this part of the national park with a management plan that is being followed. Now, perhaps Mr. Hunter has the right idea with this plan, I do not know. We have had no hearings about it. I know that it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the House Armed Services Committee; but to make an allegation that somehow I am opposed to veterans, I do not hear anyone suggesting we take the entire National Park System and because we are at a time of war we should open all the national parks for hunting.

Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's words. And I accept, as one Member, her offer to have her words withdrawn. But I encourage all of us here tonight to recognize the seriousness of what we are about and to choose our words carefully. Our side is greatly offended by this process. I suspect that you have a fair number of Members that are not very satisfied with it, either. My suggestion would be that the resolution be withdrawn and we come back and discuss it another day. However, I have no objection, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) be taken down.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution that was sponsored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and others. The line I like in it the most is it talks about encouraging children to choose a drug-free life, because the reality is, as every parent knows, you cannot follow around your kids for the rest of their life. They have to have the kind of honesty and information and judgment that they make the right choice for the rest of their life with regard to the use of drugs and the abuse of alcohol. Part of that honesty, of course, is to familiarize kids with the brutality of the drug culture and what it has been like around the world. This resolution pays tribute to Kiki Camarena and his brutal death, but also brings attention to the fact the level of brutality and violence that accompanies the drug trade. In Arkansas tomorrow there is going to be a celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Arkansans for Drug-Free Youth, the Red Ribbon Rally, and the Teen Summit on Alcohol and Tobacco. Governor Mike Huckabee will be there, along with 6,000 schoolchildren, 6,001 if you count TV personality Craig O'Neill, who will also be there, to celebrate this day in Arkansas. As a family doctor, I have seen many times the ravages of addiction to both drugs and alcohol. It is not only the health problems that occur, but job loss and problems in families and child abuse and spousal abuse. It is bad stuff that can come from drug addiction. From the medical perspective, the infections we have seen, infections that change lives and destroy lives, do bad things to people, there are so many reasons we need to help these kids choose a drug-free life. So thank you to the sponsors of this bill for proposing it. I know that everyone in Congress supports the goals of giving kids the tools they need to choose a drug-free life.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this discussion today. The points I want to make are really more in the spirit of questions. I come out of a State legislative body where the proponents of a bill such as the gentleman from Wisconsin would have to undergo a rigorous, almost cross-examination. We function here differently. But I do have some questions, and I think I will just present them in my comments and if somebody wants to comment on them they can. I heard one of the previous speakers say, well, this is a simple bill. If you eat something and get fat, you should be responsible for it. I think that is the attitude of the great majority of Americans, that you should be responsible for what you eat. But I want to make two broad points. First of all, I want to read the definition of food, and it refers to another section of code. It is very short. This is from section 201(f), 21 U.S.C. 301, section 201(f). ``The term `food' means (1) articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, (2), chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such article.'' So we are having a discussion here today about the fact, as the previous speaker had said, it is simple, you eat, you get fat, you should be responsible. The problem is, this bill language makes no reference to only the caloric containing components of food. It is very deliberately written I believe to include all food additives, no matter how small amounts, and the fact that the great majority of food additives have zero caloric intake and would have no relationship to obesity, I think that is a flaw in the bill. That leads to the second point. The bill specifically mentions weight gain and obesity. Well, I think most of us have a sense of what obesity is. Weight gain is a whole different issue, and weight gain may occur not from obesity, not from getting fat, not from putting on too many calories; weight gain can occur for a variety of medical reasons related to a variety of different causes. For example, I mean probably all of us have had a mom or a grandmom or an uncle to whom we say, hey, I noticed your legs are swelling again. Fluid retention. Fluid retention. Now, that can be from a variety of causes. That is not from increased caloric intake. That could have been, for example, from a food additive, maybe a cause that was not known to the public of some kind of additive in something that they had eaten or drank. It may have been something that interfered with one of their medications and led to fluid retention. I am just making up hypotheticals here. Or, the hypothetical, perhaps you have something that is actually a heart poison from some food additive that has no calories in it, zero calories in it, but over a period of time does bad things to the ability of your heart to function. The pump does not work so well, you start having fluid retention. What happens? You put on weight. As a family doctor, one of the reasons when you go in, I would weigh people, as you want to see what is going on with their fluid status. That is weight gain. Under this bill, which I believe is so broadly written, it would include those kinds of situations. The word ``calorie'' or ``caloric intake'' or ``caloric content'' is nowhere in this bill, and I again refer my colleagues, it is not in the bill itself, you have to go to the code, the term ``food'' means, articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, chewing gum, and articles used for components of any such article. Anything you drink, anything in it, regardless of caloric intake, is covered by this bill. Anything that leads to weight gain is covered by this bill, even if it has nothing to do with caloric intake. I think that is far abroad. I think this is probably one of the reasons why it died in the Senate and will die again, but I would encourage people to look at these kinds of details if there is intent to move this bill forward.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend my colleagues today. We are having a very sweet garden party here this morning. But I hope the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and others on their committee appreciate that we appreciate how much hard work went into this. We have not had an authorization bill. This is a 2-year authorization bill. There was a lot of hard work that went into this. We appreciate how much work you did for this bill. This is a 2-year bill, covering fiscal years 2006 and 2007. I just want to make the point that as soon as this thing gets signed into law, and we hope that it does, you will be thinking again about what the next authorization is going to look like. That is the nature of this process. It builds in a further look. Last night I wish we had had that same opportunity. As one who had voted for the PATRIOT Act 4 years ago and as one of the 171 who voted against it last night, I believe we would have had another 100 votes in support had we had the built-in sunset provisions that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) had presented to us in the motion to recommit. Thank you for your work. I hope that we will do better when this PATRIOT bill comes back from conference.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the committee staff on both sides of the aisle that worked on this bill. Last week at American University in Cairo, Egypt, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made some remarks. Part of what she said, ``When we talk about democracy, though, we are referring to governments that protect certain basic rights for all their citizens. Among these, the right to speak freely, the right to associate, the right to worship as you wish, the freedom to educate your children, boys and girls, and freedom from the midnight knock of the secret police.'' Secretary Rice continues, ``Securing these rights is the hope of every citizen, and the duty of every government. In my own country, the progress of democracy has been long and difficult. And given our history, the United States has no cause for false pride, and we have every reason for humility. After all, America was founded by individuals who knew that all human beings and the governments they create are inherently imperfect, and the United States was born half free and half slave. It was only in my lifetime that my government guaranteed the right to vote for all its people. ``Nevertheless, the principles enshrined in our Constitution enable citizens of conviction to move America closer every day to the ideal of democracy.'' That was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Cairo last week. Mr. Speaker, nowhere was the march toward the ideal of democracy more in evidence than in the fall of 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas. In 1957, Little Rock Central High School was the site of the first major national test for the implementation of the historic decision of the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. President Eisenhower issued an Executive order directing marshals and troops under Federal authority to aid in the compliance of Federal law in Little Rock, Arkansas. The courage of the ``Little Rock Nine,'' Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Melba Pattillo, Jefferson Thomas, Carlotta Walls, Terrence Roberts, Gloria Ray, Thelma Mothershed, and Minnijean Brown, who stood in the face of violence, was influential to the civil rights movement and changed American history by providing an example on which to build greater equality. The desegregation of Little Rock by the nine African American students was recognized by Dr. Martin Luther King as such a significant event in the struggle for civil rights that in May 1958 he attended the graduation of the first African American from Little Rock Central High School, Ernest Green. The 1957 crisis in Little Rock, brought about by the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School, was a huge part of the march towards freedom and opportunity in America. A 2007 commemorative coin issued by the U.S. Mint to honor the 50th anniversary of this important event will bring national and international attention to its lasting legacy. As indicated by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) the money raised from the sale of these coins pays for the cost, there is no cost to the taxpayers, and any moneys beyond the cost may be used to support the national historic site. We all are aware of the difficulties that some of our national parks now have in meeting their basic infrastructure needs, and the intent of this legislation is to provide supplementary funds to the care and maintenance of the Central Little Rock National Historic Site. Mr. Speaker, I recommend an aye vote on the legislation.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 188 introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller). I appreciate all the work he has done on the Committee on Armed Services on which we both serve. He has been a valiant supporter of our men and women in uniform, our veterans, and our national security. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) outlined well the terrible tragedy that occurred at Khobar Towers. This was really brought home to me several years ago when I had the honor of participating in a Purple Heart ceremony at the Little Rock Air Force Base, a C-130 base in my district, one of those things that all of us Members at some point get the honor of doing. During this ceremony, previous Purple Heart winners were introduced, and several of them were survivors of Khobar Towers, and it really brought home for me that for many of us Americans we hear these names, they sound exotic, they sound foreign, and yet for the families that are here with us today and the families of these men and women who died and were wounded, those names, those places, mean very much to them and their family. We are also reminded by the tragedy at Khobar Towers, the attack on Khobar Towers, of the other sacrifices that our men and women in uniform have made at places that are not all that well known to many Americans. We recall the attack on Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, at the U.S. military headquarters, November 13, 1995, in which we lost five servicemembers. Then 2 years following the Khobar Towers attack, we had the attack against two of our embassies on August 7, 1998, one in Nairobi, Kenya, and the other in Tanzania. The two truck bombs killed 11 Americans, including three servicemembers, and hundreds of Kenyans and nearly a dozen Tanzanians. Then we had the attack October 12, 2000, on the USS Cole and finally the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. So this is a very important reminder today of the sacrifice that our men and women in uniform are called on to make, but also the sacrifice that their family and friends and all of us make when we lose such fine, fine Americans. Once again, I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) for introducing this resolution, and I urge all Members to support it.

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

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I rushed over here in a big rush hoping to get some time to speak against what I think is a very, very bad amendment and bad public policy. It is my understanding that there is no time left to speak in opposition to this amendment.

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 or her own property. As Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a letter dated May 18, 1999 to Senator Leahy: ``If they are destroying a flag that belongs to someone else, that is a prosecutable crime. But if it is a flag they own, I really don't want to amend the Constitution to prosecute someone for foolishly desecrating their own property. We should condemn them and pity them instead.'' Mr. Speaker, my primary objection to this amendment is not the effect it will have on those who physically desecrate their flags, because the numbers of people who physically desecrate the American flag are so small. My objection is that it will give government a tool with which to prosecute Americans with minority views, particularly at times of great national division, even if their behavior 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 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. 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 Rector's last night following the playing of the `Star Spangled Banner.' Frederick S. Boyd, a former reporter on the New York Call, a Socialist newspaper, was dining with Miss Jessie Ashley and Miss May R. 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 beaten severely when Albert Dasburg a 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 Magistrate Corrigan in night court, 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. Boyd was found guilty of disorderly conduct and was released on suspended sentence.'' Another one from the New York Times, 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 Socialist 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 `The Marseillaise' with some interruptions, was forced to play `The Star-Spangled Banner' while cheers were given for the flag.'' Headline: ``Forced to Kiss the Flag. One Hundred Anarchists are Then Driven from San Diego. Nearly 100 Industrial Workers of the World, all of whom admitted they are anarchists, knelt on the ground at dawn today near San Onofre, a small settlement a short distance this side of the Orange County boundary line. ``The ceremony, which was unwillingly performed, was witnessed by 45 deputy constables and a large body of armed citizens of San Diego.'' What do these stories have to do with this very important and heartfelt debate today, Mr. Speaker? The decision we make today, it seems to me, is a balancing, 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, although they are already quite rare. On the other side of the 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 anecdotes from a time of great divisiveness in our Nation's history, a time much different from today, government, which ultimately as human beings with all of our strengths and weaknesses, may use this amendment to question the patriotism of vocal minorities and will use it to find excuses to legally attack demonstrations which utilize the flag in an otherwise appropriate manner, except for the fact that the flag is carried by those speaking for an unpopular minority. Let me give you an example. I was at a rural county fair in Arkansas several years ago where a group had a booth with great patriotic display, in addition to their handouts and signs. They had laid across the table, like a tablecloth, an American flag. I knew these people thought this to be a patriotic part of their display. I was standing a few booths down the way and watched as one of the volunteers sat on the table, oblivious to the fact he was sitting on our American flag. I believe that his action was a completely innocent mistake, and that he did not realize such behavior is inconsistent with good flag etiquette. I believe that had this group been a fringe group, these with views contrary to the great majority, and should we have laws prohibiting physical desecration of the flag, and had this been a time of great national division, 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 they own, but in reality because of the views that many consider out of the mainstream. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this proposed amendment.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I too want to join in commending the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) for his zealous advocacy on behalf of our men and women in uniform and on behalf of the national defense of this country. We have served together on the Committee on Armed Services, and he is a great, great member. One of the problems that we have with base closure is we are not talking about bad bases. We are not talking about bases that are not achieving good things on behalf of America. We are not talking about bad workers that are somehow not cutting it. We are talking about wonderful people working at great and historic places that have been a vital part of the national security of our country. The problem is, the world has changed and our military must be leaner and smarter and save money to prepare for the future. During the Committee on Armed Services markup, we had two different amendments on BRAC, one to eliminate it and one to delay it. The vote on the amendment to eliminate it was eight people for it and 50 against in the Committee on Armed Services. On the one to delay it, there were 10 votes in support of it and 47 against. Also, the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), are in opposition to this amendment, as they were during the committee markup. Now, why is that? The issue that we have here is this is not a good process to go through, and the gentleman from Connecticut and New Hampshire make good points about wanting additional information and would like to have additional time. The problem is, we cannot take a time out. The United States cannot declare and say, Time out. We need a couple, 3 or 4 years to go through finding the most efficient way of delivering our national security. The world does not work that way. There will never be a good time to do something like this. As the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) pointed out, we have already had a considerable amount of effort put into coming up with the process thus far. That money will be wasted if we were to delay this further. I think it also bears repeating, in reflection on the fact that the supporters of base closure have been bipartisan, both the Clinton administration and the second Bush administration have been in support of another round of base closures. When we look at the numbers of former Secretaries of Defense and former chairmen of the joint chiefs, they have been in support of another round of base closures. And it is not just closure; it is realignment. It is shifting things around to modernize the military and to prepare for the efficiencies of the future. If we delay 1 year or 2 years or 3 years, it delays the savings that can come from a realignment and closure. Obviously, the American people expect us as lawmakers to administer government efficiently. Probably the biggest concern I have, as someone who also has facilities in my district and in our State, we know the turmoil that communities go through. This will prolong that turmoil were we to adopt this amendment and delay it. So I strongly recommend a vote against this amendment. Let the process proceed in a very fair manner over the next 4 or 5 months. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), my subcommittee chairman, for the work they have done on this bill. I rise in support of this bill. There are a lot of good things in here, a 3.1 percent pay raise for the troops, which is \1/2\ percent over the employment cost index. The bill continues the efforts to eliminate out-of-pocket housing costs for servicemembers and their families and eliminates the two-tier housing allowance, or BAH-2, for Reservists and National Guardsmen who are called to duty for more than 30 days and serve less than 140 days. The bill also has some issues to address health and dental readiness, which Members heard was a problem during the Reserve mobilization. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for working with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) and others to include provisions that will update the UCMJ with regard to sexual assault crimes. These proposed changes will send a clear signal from Congress that this type of behavior is unacceptable. The bill also includes provisions that will speed up concurrent receipt payments for unemployables. I want to say a word about the women-in-combat issue. I am pleased that the amendment to be proposed by the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) here shortly today will eliminate the terrible language that is in the underlying bill, language that sends such a bad message to our women in uniform. But that language should never have been in the bill to begin with. This last Saturday we had a big homecoming ceremony for a lot of our troops coming back from Iraq that are in the National Guard. These are some of the troops that I met with, amongst others, some women that had served in Iraq. Some of the comments I heard from some of these women, they thought we were ``returning to the Stone Age,'' were one woman's words; ``an insult to the job that they had done in Iraq,'' was another woman's words. They alleged that we ``do not know what is going on in Iraq,'' was the words of another woman officer. The original subcommittee language was terrible. It would have impacted on tens of thousands of women. The language at the full committee level eliminated the bad subcommittee language, but it also was terrible. We now have thousands of women in the military confused by these 3 weeks of discussions, and I am pleased that the Hunter amendment today will eliminate it, but it should not have been in there to begin with. I support the bill.

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

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).