Vic Snyder

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words; and as I see the Chair performing once again so admirably well in a somewhat difficult debate here this evening, I am reminded of how much we will miss him after he is gone at the conclusion of this term. Mr. Chairman, let me just say a few words, first of all, as someone who is on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and as a family doctor who trained in two different veterans hospitals, one in Oregon and one in Arkansas, first as a medical student and then as a medical resident, that I can assure my colleagues my vote tonight for the Waxman amendment will not be a vote to take away dollars from the veterans' health care. I have looked at the language for this. Federal facilities, such as the veterans' health care system, veterans hospitals, have legal expense funds and they have administrative funds. The Waxman amendment very clearly states that these dollars would come from the legal and administrative expenses of the Department of Veterans Affairs for collecting and recovering amounts owed the United States. There is nothing in there about taking dollars away from x-rays for lung cancer, there is nothing in there about taking away dollars for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, there is nothing in there about taking dollars away from any other kind of health care screening or treatment or disability. We are talking about having a legal fund that is part of the veterans' health care system and just countering the language in the majority's bill that these legal funds cannot be used for this lawsuit and just saying, yes, they can be used for this lawsuit. The monies for administrative and legal expenses can be used for this lawsuit. About a week ago I went to a fund-raiser for an organization in my town that is actually housed in one of our VA facilities. They lease some space for it for a really fine hospice program. And I just happened to be sitting next to a woman who, as it turned out, we had a mutual friend. Her new daughter-in-law used to work for me. And we began talking, and she told me how her 34-year-old daughter had died 2 years before from lung cancer, a remarkably young age. But, of course, like so many of us American kids that start smoking when they are 14, 15, or 16, that can be a 20-year history of smoking a pack a day. And it really brought home the ominous nature of what we are talking about here and the dramatic effect this can have on people's lives. Like the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), who spoke earlier, multiple times, as a medical student and as a resident, I have either dealt with folks in the end stage of some tobacco-related illness or had to be the one to tell them that they had a lung cancer or that their health had deteriorated because of their tobacco use. So this is a big deal in the veterans' health care system. Frankly, I do not understand why the majority is drawing a line in the sand over the Waxman amendment when it so clearly states these funds would only come from administrative and legal expenses, not from health care. And, frankly, I am starting to resent the implication that by voting for the Waxman amendment that somehow I, as a family doctor, am voting to take away health care dollars from the VA. That is not what this amendment is about, and that is certainly not what the American people want or expect us to do. They expect us to find dollars to provide for our veterans' health care.

Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, this is not about taking monies from veterans' health care, but it is about using veterans' health care legal expenses for litigation. That is what the Waxman amendment does. It has nothing to do with decreasing health care for veterans.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Well, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I was over in my office and watching the gentleman's usual thoughtfulness. The gentleman has been a beacon in this town for the last several years, a light in all this fog that is surrounding us here right now. As the gentleman knows, when I first came here 2\1/2\ years ago, I was invited to attend the gentleman's Democratic budget study group that meets every Wednesday morning, and it has been through those group meetings that I have been helped in sorting through this fog of these numbers and in trying to understand in an unbiased way what all these numbers mean. I remember when the gentleman had that terrible tragedy of the floods in North Dakota and he was literally immersed in flood waters and stayed overnight in the shelters there, at least for one night. Well, now the gentleman has immersed himself with these budget numbers trying to understand this very, very complicated issue of budgets and how it impacts on Medicare and Social Security. And I appreciate the tremendous work that the gentleman has done. I have seen these ads that have been running against the gentleman in North Dakota, and those are an insult to the people of North Dakota. Anyone wanting to put out those ads does not understand the kind of man the gentleman is and the kind of work the gentleman has done in trying to provide for the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Anyone can put together a 30-second ad for short-term political advantage, but that is not what I think the people of America want us to do, it is certainly not what the people in North Dakota and Arkansas want us to do. They want us to work on long-term solvency of these very important programs, not short-term political advantage. It is 4:30 in the afternoon. We have our usual about empty Chamber here when we are doing these special orders. I would like to think that everyone is out trying to solve the problem of Social Security. My guess is a lot of them are out trying to raise more money trying to figure out how to run more ads against good people like the gentleman from North Dakota. But I do not think that will work and I commend the gentleman for his efforts in this regard. I want to pick up on the some of the last comments the gentleman made about the importance of Democrats and Republicans working together. We cannot solve the long-term problems of Medicare and Social Security, and I will put down there defense and veterans issues, in a partisan manner. We cannot do it. And the American people will not stand for it. Any party who has the votes can put bills through, but that will not lead to the ultimate long-term solvency of these programs that the American people care about so much. Somehow we have to get past all this. We also have to recognize that this country has a lot of needs. Our senior citizens have a lot of needs, not just Social Security, even though it is vital. Veterans. Very important to senior citizens. Medicare is very important to senior citizens. A lot of the senior citizens in my district care very much about our defense budget. They came through World War II and the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and they recognize the importance of a strong defense. They also recognize the problems of paying for drugs when on Medicare, and they care about that deeply. They also understand the importance of education. When I go visit a friend in the hospital, I am very much aware most of the people working in the hospital are fresh out of our high schools and colleges. We depend, even in our retirement years, on the education level of the generations coming behind. So for many what long-term solvency means is to have a program that my mother can depend on, that I can depend on, and that the staff that work for me in their 20s in my office can depend on. I have one pregnant staffer. To me, long-term solvency means that those kids that are coming behind us, that are now toddlers and in grade school, that they know that their Congress is watching out for this program, not for short-term political gain, not to run a 30-second political spot to try to hurt a good Member like the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), but that we are working together in a bipartisan way, Republican and Democrat, old and young, so that we can make this Social Security, Medicare, and veterans programs be there for all our retirees in the future. And once again I commend the work the gentleman has done on this issue and, I am confident, will do for many years.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege back in July to visit Africa, to visit both Eritrea and Ethiopia. This is an interest of mine that began back in 1985 when I worked as a doctor in a refugee camp on the Ethiopian, Eritrean, Sudanese border during the great drought and war that was going on at that time. I am very much aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing more dangerous than a Member of Congress who has read a book or made a trip; but if I might, let me make a few comments following that visit. First of all, this is a country of 65 million people. It is not a tiny nation. It is a very significant portion of the continent of Africa. These two nations are in one of the poorest areas of the world, in the Horn of Africa, but there has been remarkable efforts made since 1991, the end of the civil war against the Marxist military dictatorship that ruled both Eritrea and Ethiopia, and I saw evidence of this development. New schools, new industry, new colleges, community organizations working very hard on both sides on what they know to be their number one enemy, which is poverty. This has continued through 1993, and after 1993, when the peaceful separation of Eritrea from Ethiopia occurred and Eritrea achieved independence. But then May of 1998 came along, and we had this horrific war. And let me repeat it is a horrific war that involves over 65 million people. It is entrenched warfare that has involved infantry assaults against fixed positions at a level not seen on this Earth in decades. There has been very, very high death rates among the wounded and there has been a high rate of wounded. I visited the front one time, on one day for about an hour, on the Badime Plain. It was quiet then, as it has been now for several months. We could see remnants of burned-out tanks and were told that there were still corpses down below. But the problem will be what happens now that the rains are ending and the terrain is drying out. And that is the fear in those countries, but also the fear in Africa that this war will again renew itself. I have visited with both Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia and President Isaias in Eritrea. Both are patriots who care deeply about their countries, but so far they have been unsuccessful in their abilities to end this war together. But it is interesting the amount of agreement on both sides. Both sides agree that this has been a horrific war with heavy losses on both sides. Both sides agree that this war has delayed development and delayed the fight against the ultimate enemy of the Horn of Africa, which is poverty. Both sides agree that eventually there will be an agreement, and both sides will work together once again on development together. Both sides agree that they want the world community to assist them in ending this war. Now, that seems to me to be a lot of agreement and a lot of fertile ground for ending a war. But, unfortunately, to this date, it has not occurred. This Congress does not have the specific answer on how to end this war. We are not diplomats. But this Congress and the American people do have great interest in seeing this terrible war end. I was optimistic at the end of July and August, and even into September, that progress was being made. Now I am not so optimistic, and I fear, as the rains have ended, that we may be seeing the signs of war renewing itself once again. I hope the peacemakers will keep making peace. I hope the war fighters will hold off, even as the terrain dries. I support this resolution. One part of it I do disagree with, and perhaps it is an editing error, the resolution refers to thousands of civilian deaths. Personally, myself, I did not see evidence of thousands of civilian deaths. I saw evidence of thousands of internally displaced persons. But perhaps the resolution meant to say the deaths of thousands of soldiers. But I support the underlying intent of this resolution, which is to encourage an end to this terrible war between Eritrea and Ethiopia and appreciate the interest of my colleagues in bringing the resolution here today.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, as a family doctor in Arkansas for 20 years, I am well aware that doctors and nurses do not know everything about health policy. But one thing I do know is that, in a doctor's office in America today, arguments and shouting matches with insurance companies occur on a regular basis. Let me tell my colleagues about one example. I saw a patient with depression; and as part of the treatment, I thought they needed counseling. How do I obtain counseling? I took the patient into a room, gave them an 800 number to their insurance company, and they had to call an anonymous voice on the phone who made the decision about whether they would get counseling and for how many sessions. This is wrong. If anonymous voices working for insurance companies at the end of a phone make medical decisions, they should be held just as accountable under State law as doctors and nurses. Pass Norwood-Dingell.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here today is one program in the District of Columbia called Prevention Works. Yesterday, I met with their administrative staff and some of their board members, and today I went out and visited with them as their truck and van was on the streets of the District of Columbia, about 6 minutes' drive from here. What is the program we are talking about? It is a 1985 truck with unreliable air-conditioning staffed by two remarkable people, Alphonso and Vera, showing tough, but compassionate, care for a group of people that nobody in this place wants anything to do with. As it turns out, my last hour visit this morning is the only time a Member of Congress has visited this truck and van and seen what they do, and that includes the proponents who are talking so knowledgeably about it today. They do, indeed, count their needles, and one can watch them do it if one would take the time to visit. Second point. The issue is not what we in our own personal conclusions or personal thinking, what conclusions we reach. The issue is, what standards should this body apply to justify prohibiting elected officials in the District of Columbia from not using their own local funds. That is the issue. We should vote ``no'' on this amendment and let them decide what is best for their town.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, this irresponsible tax bill is wrong for Arkansas. I have a dozen reasons why I will not vote for it: World War I veterans, World War II veterans, Korean War veterans, Vietnam veterans, Gulf War veterans, veterans of the Balkans, Cold War veterans, all other veterans. Social Security recipients, Medicare recipients, future recipients of Social Security, and most importantly, future generations. At the very time we are debating an irresponsible tax cut, we have not begun to solve the long-term challenges of Social Security and Medicare. We fail in our duty to future generations by not paying down the $5.5 trillion national debt, and worst of all, we have not even adequately funded this year's veterans budget, much less future budgets. Mr. Speaker, I want to give my constituents a tax cut, but I want to do it without saddling future generations with debt, without threatening the future of Social Security and Medicare, and most important of all, without breaking promises to all of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and the rule. Last week I was in Africa and visited three very poor countries, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Ethiopia. Two of them are involved in a very, very violent war that has killed tens of thousands of people over the last year, but they still recognize that poverty is their number one enemy. And they also are noticing, Mr. Speaker, that we have spent billions of dollars in the Balkans, and are still bogged down over this bill. Africa will notice. Today is the day to send this bill forward, even if it is not perfect. For those who are concerned that it is not a perfect bill, what is the protection? The protection is these countries do not have to participate. It is almost patronizing to say that somehow we have to put out this perfect bill and this they somehow cannot sort through all these conditions themselves. They will do what is in their best interests. If they like these conditions, they will meet them and negotiate and work with the United States on trade. This is good for Africa. It is good for the United States. I support the rule and the bill.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, while the world watches, the events of peace unfold in the Balkans, the violence of a land war raging in Africa between the nations of Eritrea and Ethiopia. As a family doctor who worked in refugee camps in Sudan in 1985 and cared for refugees from both great nations, I can only feel sadness as massive military confrontation continues with large numbers of casualties on both sides. Since this war began a year ago, I have asked a number of wise people to share with me the causes of this war. But, frankly, it appears to be a war that serves no purpose and seems to offer no hope but only destruction for the two countries. I commend the OAU for their continued efforts to find peace, but ultimately the decision to stop warring comes down to individual decisions by each great nation, Eritrea and Ethiopia. Mr. Speaker, it is the hope of the world, at least of those that are watching, that these decisions are made soon.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, it seems like this provision in this bill has become like a piece of Super Glue we are all trying to shake off our hand and just cannot quite figure out how to do it. With regard to what the chairman of the committee talked about, the 55 to 1 vote, being one of the 55, I thought we had some assurances during that fairly painful discussion that there would be work on this language. We are all trying to figure out a way to get around it, and in fact, the original rule that came to the House floor had a self- executing provision, the majority's rule, to get rid of this language, and the rule was defeated, I believe, or did not have the support only because of some other extraneous problems depending on some amendments that did not get on the floor under that rule. So, I mean, this thing has been a problem from the very beginning, and I would hope that we could take care of it today. As my colleagues know, after we had that 55-to-1 vote, we were all very proud of this bill, and what was the headline in the paper? ``House Votes to Cut Off Funds for Kosovo.'' That is what will happen again if this bill passes today. I woke up this morning excited about all the work we put in this bill and finishing it and heard a radio report that the House will vote today on cutting off funds for Kosovo. That is the way this provision is going to be interpreted if we do not strike it, and I fear that we have got ourselves into an anti-commander-in-chief feeling, meaning anti-Bill-Clinton feeling in our partisan divide. I believe that is unfortunate. I hope that we will vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and put out the good authorization bill we have.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), my friend and personal hero. A year ago, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and I traveled to Russia and visited several classified Russian nuclear labs. While we were there, we saw a demonstration, a cooperative venture that was set up between Sandia lab back in the United States and Russia. We actually looked on TV screens and were looking at this Sandia lab. It was an experiment on how to most efficiently control nuclear materials, how to most efficiently verify that respective Nations are following treaty requirements. What will happen if this amendment passes? First of all, there will be retaliation. Any nation that is on this sensitive nations list, they are going to retaliate against us. Of course, they are not going to let people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and I continue to visit their complexes. Second, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) a while ago gave a list of the nations that are on the list of sensitive countries, and he mentioned Cuba and Algeria. I mean, who can complain about not letting Cuban baseball players into our nuclear facilities? The problem is that is an incomplete list. The list I received from staff also mentions that are on the list of sensitive countries, Israel, Taiwan, India, Pakistan. Surely we would all acknowledge that these are countries that we do have need for cooperative scientific venture even in some classified areas. The third point I would make is that this amendment is too broad. The specific language puts this 2-year moratorium on ``any facility of a national laboratory.'' Now, the doctor in me, when I hear the word ``laboratory,'' I think it talks about some one little small space or one room. These laboratories, like Sandia lab, Los Alamos, are large, sprawling, many, many acres, many, many buildings, doing all kinds of work with all kinds of different scientists, much of which is not classified. We would be cutting off all of this material and all of those opportunities by passing this amendment.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, recently I met with representatives of the Ethiopian and Eritrean embassies. The two countries are involved in a horrific border war that since May, 1998, has resulted in tens of thousands of casualties. As family doctor who worked in a refugee camp near Kassala, Sudan, in 1985, and treated refugees from both Tigre and Eritrea, it is heartbreaking to see this war continue. Just a few years ago, the Horn of Africa was one of the most promising development storise on the continent. There was great hope for both Eritrea and Ethiopia in 1991, two countries with a great deal in common. Now, tragically, that promise is gone, swept away in war. Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to ask the United States to take sides militarily in this war. It is not in our interests, or in those of the warring parties, that we do. What I do ask is for the two warring nations, Ethiopia and Eritrea, to agree to a cease-fire and peace settlement. The OAU proposal seems to be acceptable to both countries, but for unclear reasons has not been signed. A cease-fire and peace treaty must be agreed to. The war must end. New enemies must again become old friends.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this bill today. Number one, I think it is poorly written. We have already had discussions about the phrase ``ground elements,'' but hey, I think we can get some lawyers to help us command. I think it is also rushed. We have had ever-changing language. First there was no language to deal with our own downed pilots. Then we had no language to deal with U.S. citizens and pilots. Now we have language to deal with allied crew members. Be wary of an ever-changing bill. Third, this is the wrong message to our allies. What if we have British or French troops kidnapped like our ground troops were kidnapped in Macedonia, and they come to us and ask us to help, and we say, are they a member of air crew, and they say, no, they are relief workers. We will say, we will file a bill next week and take care of that. Very poor language. That is what happens when we rush things on through. This is a poorly-worded bill at the wrong time. Please vote no.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to be here with him this evening. I appreciate the work the gentleman has done on these issues and the folks that stayed around to talk about the importance of fiscal discipline. As the gentleman knows, the House has adjourned for the week. Most people are in planes heading home, and it seems like we had some stalwarts defending the importance of fiscal discipline in this country to stick around this evening and discuss this issue. I want to make a comment briefly, if I could. I heard someone on the House floor today talking about how we have the situation now where we have budget surpluses as far as the eye can see. As far as the eye can see. I think it is very nice to be part of a Congress, in my second term, where we can talk about budget surpluses. But as I look out at the world today, I also see challenges as far as the eye can see. Mr. Speaker, we better be very, very careful that we not head down the path of a lack of fiscal discipline and head into the time of not being responsible in how we deal with these surpluses or we will make some mistakes like we have in the past. So what are some of the challenges? We talked a lot about the importance of dealing with Social Security and Medicare before we talk about major and large and huge tax cuts. That is what the American people want us to do. They want us to deal with the challenges of Social Security and Medicare. They understand this baby boomer generation, of which I am a member. When we are fully retired in 15 or 20 years, we will challenge those two systems. The events in Kosovo and the Balkans in the last 3 weeks really bring home the importance of having a well-funded and adequate and strong and capable and technologically superior defense. And there were a lot of us that have been concerned, even before these events in the Balkans, that we need to put additional money into the defense budget. Clearly, the events of the last 3 weeks, the last 21, 22 days, bring home that even more. I am also on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and have been very concerned as a family doctor about, are we adequately funding the health needs of veterans? I believe there is going to be some information come out in the next few days about the potential once again, bring home the potential once again for hepatitis C and its impact on the VA health care system. As we learn more and about hepatitis C, its long latency period, about the increased risk to Vietnam veterans, about the devastation that it can bring on people years after they incurred the virus through chronic hepatitis, through loss of their liver, through death. I had a friend who died a few months ago of hepatitis C, and he had been in good health at age 43 2 weeks before his death. And finally, the changing world economy. It is too soon to think that because we see surpluses as far as the eye can see that this world economy will never change in a negative direction. Of course we are going to have recessions. Of course we are going to have recessions in the future, some of which may be fairly major. These are the kinds of things that we have to be prepared for that are challenges in the future. Agriculture: In Arkansas we had terrible problems with drought and low prices, and I do not see and I do not think many people in Arkansas see that improving this next cycle. That is going to be a very great challenge for this country, and we are nowhere close to solving that. Challenges take money. And I support tax cuts. I supported the tax cuts in 1997. I supported balancing the budget in 1997. But before we are too quick to give away huge tax cuts, contrary to the wishes of the American people, we had better deal with these very, very significant challenges, solve them first, be sure that we maintain our budget discipline, our fiscal discipline is so important to this country and so important to the American people, and then deal with the long-term issue of what kinds of tax cuts, in what amounts can we give tax cuts to the American people. And I know every Member of Congress would like to give tax cuts to the American people if it is fiscally sound. I appreciate the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), his work on this issue.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, the budget that we are considering today is a huge number to all of us; and we are talking about Social Security, Medicare, defense. A small part of it is the veterans number, but the veterans number is not a small part of the lives of veterans. This number, the budget number for fiscal year 2000 in the Republican budget is not adequate. The veterans know it. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, both Republicans and Democrats, know it. The VA hospital doctors and nurses know it. The only people who apparently do not know that this number was inadequate were the Committee on Budget members who passed this budget number out. Not only is it inadequate for fiscal year 2000, but we are voting on a 10-year budget number. While this number has $20.2 billion in fiscal year 2000, in 2001 it drops back to $19.1 billion, which is less than the current fiscal year. I think that veterans' communities and veterans around the country need to know what this long-term budget process does that the Republicans have put on to this House floor today. The number is wrong. It is wrong this year. It is wrong for next year. Vote no on this Republican budget.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, like a lot of Americans tonight and perhaps people all around the world, I have been spending my time channel surfacing through the various networks and following what is going on overseas in Kosovo. The President spoke, as my colleagues know, within the last hour from the Oval Office about what is going on. From the standpoint of those of us who are dealing with these budgetary issues now and will be voting on them tomorrow, as we recognize our young men and women and the sacrifices they are making tonight, they are flying in the budget decisions that were made in years gone by. I hope tomorrow that our thoughts will be with those young men and women as we cast our votes on what we think the best budget is for the future of this country. The issues that have gotten a lot of attention over the last several months about the budget have been issues involving family security, Medicare, and Social Security. One of my specific concerns about the votes that we have to make tomorrow is another part of the security of our senior citizens, and that is the veterans budget. Frankly, I think that the budget proposal that apparently was just filed here in the last few minutes is not adequate for veterans. It is very disappointing and perhaps more disappointing in view of what is going on overseas this evening and today. Fortunately we will have the opportunity tomorrow to vote on a better budget for veterans. It will be the alternative offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). It will not only add additional money to this next year's budget but will maintain that number through the next several years. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) did such a good job in discussing the problems of tax cuts down the line, unfortunately the budget document that we are going to be presented tomorrow takes money from, in my opinion, good programs in order to finance those tax cuts. So we see that the budget tomorrow, with regard to veterans issues, it takes the President's budget, it adds $0.8 billion to it for the 2000 fiscal year, but then the number drops back down in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and 2004. So the veterans are being falsely, in my opinion, falsely fooled into thinking that somehow we have this great budget that is going to add money to their budget for their future, and it does not. The number is inadequate for the fiscal year that we are considering, and then it is clearly even more inadequate in the years following because it drops back. The budget of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) adds $1.8 billion to the veterans budget for the fiscal year we are considering and maintains that level over the future. The majority budget adds $0.8 billion to go to the budget for fiscal year 2000, and then that number drops back. I think that is not correct and not the proper way to treat our veterans. What it demonstrates, though, is the importance of being fiscally responsible. We have some very real needs in this country, and I think Social Security and Medicare are appropriately at the top of the list. But veterans and our promises that we made to our veterans also should be at the top of that list, as should our national defense budget. The more we take these dollars and, in my opinion, irresponsibly make promises to the American people that somehow we can do it all, we can fund everything, we can fund Medicare, we can fund Social Security, we can fund veterans, we can fund national defense, and, by the way, we can send all this money home to them, if we make those kinds of false promises, we do a disservice to our responsibilities down the line. That is why I am pleased to be here tonight and support the efforts of this group in being fiscally responsible and voting for a budget that does not squander this opportunity to put away surpluses for the future of this country, for veterans, for national defense, and for our senior citizens.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, last year I was one of the people that voted for this bill. We had had lengthy discussions at the committee about it, and I was part of the subcommittee, part of the investigation. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) and I went out and visited Arlington, and I voted for the bill the last time. I was one of the 412 to 0 that supported it because I thought we had assurances that there was going to be done, some work was going to be done on the bill to improve it. The deal was some of the concerns that had been brought up. But we have now come almost, I guess, a year and a half or 2 years later, a year later certainly, and no work has been done, and the arguments are the same, and we have learned now two different things: Number one, we have learned that the bill died on the Senate side. They did not take up the bill, I think because of concerns that have been expressed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and some others that there is not wiggle room in this bill to allow for those extraordinary events that occur. The other thing that has occurred is, this last year, is the terrible tragedy that we had with the shooting of two of the Capitol Police officers, and one of them under this bill clearly would not qualify for burial at Arlington, and I know of very, very few people in this Nation who do not believe that Officer Gibson deserved burial at Arlington Cemetery for giving his life to protect every American who was in the Capitol that day and plans on coming to the Capitol, to protect this shrine of democracy. So that is the problem I have with this bill this year. We have not learned from the events of the last year, and I think this is something that good faith people can work on. Now the alternative we have been given under the language of this bill is that legislation could be passed. But we all know there are going to be situations that will occur when Congress is not in session, when we are in the August recess, when it is a week before a campaign and there has been a terrible tragedy. There is not going to be a special session of Congress called to deal with it. Beyond the inconvenience and the problems of dealing with a family in a 3- or 4-day period of time when we are not in session is just the whole idea of thinking about dealing with a bill that has been filed with 10 cosponsors to open up Arlington to a specific member. Are my colleagues going to be the people that step forward and say, ``I am going to vote against that family. They were not heroic enough.'' I do not think that is the kind of legislation that we are going to want to deal with down the line, so I personally think that legislation is an unsatisfactory resolution. Another aspect of the bill I have problems with that we did not talk about much during committee is the fact that monuments in Arlington under this bill will be limited to military events only. That means that the monument that is there now for Challenger, for the Challenger disaster, the space shuttle disaster, under the language of this bill we could have no future monuments like that because the NASA mission is not a military event. I think that is unfortunate. I think the people that were in the space shuttle were clearly heroic folks. In conclusion, I do not fault the intent of this bill. I think, as my colleagues know, to codify this, to make these rules known to people out in America, what it means to be buried at Arlington, I think that is a noble effort. The problem I have is we have not done the work on this side and we are going to turn our problem over to the Senate side. We are going over there saying we know this bill needs work, we have not figured out in 2 years how to do it, and we are going to say that we are satisfied sending the bill over knowing that there are American heroes down the line that we will want to have in Arlington that will not be eligible under the language of this bill, and I do not think that is what the House of Representatives ought to do.

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

Mr. SNYDER. Reclaiming my time, if I might, I had hoped that we could have had these discussions at the subcommittee level, but it got snowed out in one of the great late winter snowstorms of 1999, but it was not rescheduled, and that is part of my frustration today. We immediately went to the full committee. That, in my opinion, did not allow for the kind of discussions that need to occur at the subcommittee level to improve the bill.

Mr. SNYDER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SNYDER. If I may reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I did not speak about that today. I do not know that that is the option that the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) presented at the subcommittee level. I think there are--there are several possibilities. For example, one possibility maybe should include, as my colleagues know, maybe twice a year, once a year, formal accounting, as my colleagues know, where we call up Arlington here to outline and discuss for us all the waivers this last year. Another option ought to include, I think, an immediate public notification. Another option may be that the Secretary of the Army could grant waivers after consultation with the ranking member and chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Another option may be to have some kind of formal notification list; as my colleagues know, fax numbers of all the VSOs and the subcommittee chairs and ranking members. As my colleagues know, at 10 p.m. on a Saturday night the Secretary of the Army issued a waiver for this person. That kind of constant public scrutiny may deal with some of the concerns that we have had. So do not hang them on that particular there.