Vic Snyder

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; and I rise in support of this bill. I think this bill has a lot of good things in it for our troops, and I appreciate all the work Members on both sides of the aisle have done. I want to mention two or three things that I think we need to work on and maybe we can work on in the future. First of all, Mr. McHugh and I participated in a joint hearing yesterday with Mr. Boozman, from one of the Veterans Committee's subcommittees, and Ms. Herseth, the ranking member; and we had a really good hearing on the GI bill. The GI bill has challenges. We have problems now in that the GI bill program for folks in the Active component is a different program than for those in the Reserve component, the folks in the Army Reserves and the National Guard. What has happened as the years have gone by it has become a really terribly unfair program for our folks in the Reserve component, and for the folks in the Active component, the cost of going to school gets higher and higher. So we had a good hearing yesterday. I hope that this joint hearing between the Veterans Committee and the Armed Services Committee will continue but with the ultimate result being we make a change in some of the issues in the GI bill. One provision I wished had been accepted, Senator Lincoln had inserted on the Senate side, dealt with what I think is just unconscionable, and that is the way we treat members of the Reserve who are activated in the GI bill. The way the system currently works is if they get activated, let's say activated to go to Iraq, 14, 15 months, and then get out. So here they have been in a war zone for a year, their enlistment ends, and once the enlistment ends, they get zero educational benefit. Zero educational benefit. Now the administration says that helps retention. But the retention numbers are good. That, to me, is terribly unfair, and we need to do a better job on that. Another provision I wish that we would either do in the defense bill or as a stand-alone provision is what Senator Truman did during World War II. We need something comparable to the Truman Commission to deal with the waste of billions and billions of dollars and the dissatisfaction of American taxpayers with how the dollars have been spent on reconstruction projects in Iraq. A third point I would make, and I made it before, is I really hope, we have tried it now 10 years without the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and in my view that has been to the great detriment of the American people, the American taxpayer, and our men and women in uniform. So I hope we will bring back the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to the House Armed Services Committee. I recommend everyone support this bill, and thank you to Chairman Hunter and Mr. Skelton for the work they have done on this bill.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Personnel in our military, Mr. Speaker, must be properly equipped and trained in order to be ready for the unforeseen wars of the future. Even General Schoomaker, the Chief of Staff of the Army, though readiness levels are classified, has publicly expressed concern regarding the unacceptable readiness levels of our U.S.-based units. Not enough equipment, not enough money, not enough time for proper training for our wonderful troops. We can do better, Mr. Speaker. America must do better so we can be the safe, secure country we want to be.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, probably the most frequent fear facing a family each month is paying bills. Even families with income above minimum wage struggle. Nothing pays family bills but money. Nothing is better for bringing in money than a good job with a good wage. For the last several years, our country has not been moving in the right direction: no change in the minimum wage; the numbers of uninsured substantially increased; tuition for technical schools going up; tuition for colleges substantially increased without an appreciable increase in Pell Grants and the GI bill. We must do better. Americans know we can do better.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, until the day he died last Sunday, Lieutenant Governor Win Rockefeller cared deeply about his family, did all he could for Arkansas, and loved America. My wife was formerly his associate pastor for 7 years at Pulaski Heights Methodist Church, and she shared with me today a couple of her favorite stories about Win. She said that here he was, one of America's richest men. When he was with the youth program as a father, as a member of the church, rather than fly up to Colorado and meet the youth group, he climbed on the bus as a chaperone and took the 16-hour ride with all the kids and teenagers up to Colorado on the ski trip. She also related to me when she left at the end of her 7 years at Pulaski Heights Methodist Church and was going through a lot of changes in her life, that the church had two different receptions which he attended to show his support and affection and concern for her. Lieutenant Governor Rockefeller was a genuine, caring man. Our thoughts are with his wonderful children and family.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution contains phrases such as ``we will prevail,'' words like ``determination,'' ``resolve,'' ``we are committed to the completion of the mission.'' It is a good, well written pep talk. But where is the discussion of how? As Mr. Gilchrest, our colleague from Maryland and a decorated Vietnam war veteran said, where is the urgency in figuring out how we are going to do those things? We should be having a debate and a discussion on how we will prevail, not just that want to prevail. Specifically, how are we going to equip a very poorly equipped Iraqi army? How are we going to set up a system of support and supply and repair for the Iraqi army? How are we going to ensure that more Iraqis are employed and develop the economy? How are we going to increase electricity production, which is below prewar levels? How are we going to increase access to potable water and sanitation, which is below prewar levels? How are we going to increase oil production and the oil production sector, which is below prewar levels? How are we going to finish putting together the provincial reconstruction teams? How are we going to increase and improve the training of police? How are we going to help create and improve local courts and the judicial system? How are we going to improve the refining capacity? Iraq is an importer of gasoline. How are we going to improve the accountability for contractors? That means how are we going to quit wasting billions of U.S. tax dollars? How are we going to find more allies to share in this burden? How are we going to keep our Army, our military from breaking down? How are we going to strengthen our Reserve component, our blessed Guard and Reserve people? How are we going to preserve our all volunteer Army? How are we going to increase our public diplomacy, so that people will quit hating America all around the world? How are we going to make our troops safer? Those are the kinds of discussions we should be having. But what are we doing? We are rehashing the past. We are talking about the 1990s. We are talking about the war resolution. Let us look ahead. How are we going to prevail? How are we going to keep this commitment to the completion of this mission? Specifically, I think we need to do far better oversight. I am a member of the House Arms Services Committee. We are abysmal in our oversight, abysmal. Years ago when the Republicans took over, and maybe it was a good move at that time, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was eliminated. It has not worked to do that. I see friends over here. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to bring back the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations so we can ask these kind of questions. How are we going to do the things? How are we going to achieve this pep talk that is going to be voted on today or tomorrow?

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, a while ago one of the members of the Armed Services Committee said under the rules of the debate today that we can discuss anything we want to, debate anything we want to. It occurs to me while this is not a proposal for statutory change, it is a sense of the House resolution. Under the rules of this debate, may I present my amendment to reestablish the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in the House Armed Services Committee so we may properly provide oversight? Is that allowed under the rules of this debate today?

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Last week, Mr. Speaker, all 28 Democrats of the House Armed Services Committee signed a letter to Chairman Duncan Hunter asking for the reinstatement of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Now why do we do this? Because 10 years ago when the Republicans took over control of Congress that subcommittee on the House Armed Services Committee was eliminated and the intent was that oversight, bipartisan oversight was to be conducted by the other subcommittees. That has been a failure and we have seen that as members of this committee, some of us for almost a decade now. It has been a failure particularly during this time that our Nation is at war. Our troops deserve the kind of effective government oversight that they deserve. So what are we talking about? We have had corruption, we have had fraud, we have had gross mismanagement; and it undermines the war in Iraq. Anthony Cordesman, the noted expert from CSIS, concluded that we have wasted about half of the $22 billion of U.S. funds that have been spent so far in reconstruction, and much of the $34.6 billion of Iraqi funds. The Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction concluded that ``corruption is another form of insurgency in Iraq.'' So what are we talking about? We have spent about $1.8 billion on electricity reconstruction projects, but the pre-war capacity has not yet been reached for electricity generation. We have spent $650 million of USAID money on oil production infrastructure, but we still have not reached the pre-war level production capacity. We have spent about $690 million of U.S. dollars on water and sanitation projects in Iraq, and yet the percentage of Iraqis with access to drinkable water has fallen to 32 percent from the pre-war level of 50 percent, and the percentage of Iraqis with access to sewer and sanitation has dropped from 24 percent to 20 percent. Here is the problem: our troops are dying and bleeding to give the Iraqi people a chance to do well for themselves and their family, to have drinkable water, to have a safe place to raise children, to have the kind of electricity and the kind of things they need for modern civilization. And yet, because of the inadequacies of the way the administration is conducting the war and monitoring the payments of these monies, that work is not getting done and the Democrats on the House Arms Services Committee are saying tonight we have got to do better. I would now like to yield to Mr. Rick Larsen from the State of Washington, also a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Earlier this evening, Mr. Speaker, I read the essay, the winning essay from Morgan Sweere, age 9, in the fourth grade in Conway, Arkansas. And the title of the essay contest, ``What Rosa Parks Means to Me.'' I would like to read two other winners. The next one is ``What Rosa Parks Will Mean to My Children.'' This is the junior high level essay contest that we held. And the winner of this one in the Second District of Arkansas was Brenna Gilstrap, of the eighth grade at Horace Mann Arts and Science Magnet Middle School in Little Rock, Arkansas. And this is what Brenna Gilstrap has to say, in part, about What Rosa Parks Will Mean for My Children: ``Rosa Parks has always been an amazing icon to people everywhere, symbolizing strength and pride during a period in America where racism thrived. I believe everyone is familiar with her story, how she refused to give up her seat on the bus to another person and she had to simply because they were Caucasian, and how she was arrested for doing so. This story of a brave woman standing up for what she believed in will, in my opinion, greatly influence the attitudes of my children, teaching them important morals. Speak your mind even if your voice shakes. Ban ignorance and pay attention to the mistakes made in the past in order to prevent them in the future. Always stand up for what you believe in because even one little person could make a difference in thousands of lives. These are the things that my children will learn from her story. This is why it will mean something. ``Examine the first moral. Speak your mind even if your voice shakes. What this means is that even if you are nervous, even if you know the consequences to what you are saying can be brutal, as long as you feel deeply in your heart that a change needs to be made, express what you feel. Say exactly what you're thinking and say why. Rosa Parks knew that the fuss she was making wasn't just about a good seat. It was about rights, equal rights for one and all. The right to sit in the good seats, use the good bathrooms, go to the good parties, live the good life, a life without oppression.'' And her essay goes on. This is by Brenna Gilstrap, the winner of the What Rosa Park Will Mean for My Children essay contest in the Second District of Arkansas, and Brenna is in the eighth grade at Horace Mann Arts and Science Magnet Middle School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The winner of the high school version of the contest, ``What Rosa Parks Will Mean for My Grandchildren,'' was won by Alyx Vanness, Conway High School East. This is her essay in part. ``What I would like my grandchildren to remember about Rosa Parks is the true account of her stand for equality for blacks, and the many features she overcame along the way. Even though she is usually remembered for only one of her protests, I would like my grandchildren to know all the rallies she took part in during her life and how it affected the black community. Rosa Parks became one of the most recognizable civil rights activists on December 1, 1955, when she refused to give up her seat on a bus for a white man. Although a simple act with one woman protesting, it is one of her most remembered fights for justice among the races. The incident is later recalled by Parks in her book Quiet Strength. `I kept thinking about my mother and my grandparents and how strong they were. I knew there was a possibility of being mistreated, but an opportunity was being given to me to do what I had asked of others.' ``Rosa Parks did just that when not going back to the colored section of the bus when a white man had told her to. Most historians account the refusal because she was tired from a long day's work, but to Parks it was more than that. I would like my grandchildren to be told that she did it specifically to stand up for her people, that she was no more tired than the rest of her days. Because of her refusal to get up, a 381 day Montgomery bus boycott was started and her arrest and trial caused the Supreme Court to rule segregation on buses unconstitutional. This opened the gates for many blacks to come one step closer to equality.'' Her essay goes on it. That is part of the winning essay by Alyx Vanness from Conway High School East in the 10th grade in Conway, Arkansas, The high school winner of the what Rosa Parks means for my grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I include the essays of Brenna Gilstrap and Alyx Vanness for the Record. What Rosa Parks Will Mean For My Children (By Brenna Gilstrap) ``Rosa Parks has always been an amazing icon to people everywhere, symbolizing strength and pride during a period in America where racism thrived. I believe everyone is familiar with her story, how she refused to give up her seat on the bus to another person (and she had to, simply because they were Caucasian) and how she was arrested for doing so. This story of a brave woman standing up for what she believed in, will, in my opinion, greatly influence the attitudes of my children, teaching them important morals. Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes. Ban ignorance, and pay attention to the mistakes made in the past in order to prevent them in the future. Always stand up for what you believe in, because even one little person can make a difference in thousands of lives. These are the things that my children will learn from her story, this is why it will mean something. Examine the first moral: speak your mind, even if your voice shakes. What this means is that even if you're nervous, even if you know the consequences to what you are saying can be brutal, as long as you feel deeply in your heart that a change needs to be made, express what you feel. Say exactly what you're thinking, and say why. Rosa Parks knew that the fuss she was making wasn't just about a good seat; it was about rights, equal rights, for one and all. The right to sit in the good seats, use the good bathrooms, go to the good parties, live the good life, a life without oppression. She spoke her mind, became an icon, an example, a legend; and I am sure that being a little nervous and a little afraid never stopped her. She knew the consequences, but she spoke out. This is what I want my children to do: say what they feel without being afraid of what might happen or what others would think. Examine the next moral: ban ignorance. In other words, pay attention to what happened in the past to prevent mistakes from occurring again. Our country, just like all the others, has made a lot of mistakes: the Japanese camps set up in Arkansas after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, for example. Just because they looked somewhat Japanese, people were sent into crowded camps to live out their lives, forced to sell all that they had, forced to suffer for something they didn't even do. If we didn't learn from that, we might be keeping all people from the Middle East imprisoned now for something they weren't responsible for. And the segregation issues our nation went through concerning African Americans and their rights. If we didn't learn from that, I wouldn't have a lot of the friends that I do now. We would be separated from each other. Rosa Parks helped show America what a big mistake they were making, and I want my children to learn from that, and to stand up like that if they ever get caught in the mistakes of the world. Lastly, examine my final moral: Stand up for what you believe in. This is a moral that no one can forget. When something unjust happens, like someone at your school becomes subject to a daily abusive torrent of insult and injury, or when a presidential candidate comes along that you strongly oppose, or when you are treated unfairly by someone around you, you have to stand up and fight. Don't ever forget that even one voice counts, even when amongst thousands, matters. Justice cannot be reached until you stand up and be counted; even just one more step is closer than no steps at all. Rosa took that step, she was counted. This is what I want my children to do: stand up for what they believe in, no matter what. Rosa Parks was an amazing role model for all ages to look up to. Her timeless story and amazing perseverence in the eyes of oppression has touched, enlightened, and inspired for many generations. The astounding morals her story teaches are guidelines that should be followed in one's everyday life. Hopefully they will inspire my children to become the amazing and inspirational people of tomorrow as Rosa Parks was for yesterday. This is what Rosa Parks will mean for my children.''

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, the winner in my district of ``What Rosa Parks Means To Me'' essay contest at the elementary school level was Morgan Sweere in the fourth grade, age 9, at Ida Burns Elementary School in Conway, Arkansas. This is her essay: ``Rosa Parks means incredible courage to me. She had the courage to stay in her seat even though society demanded that she give it up to a white person. She was tired and worn out from working. She also knew the consequences of her actions, but she refused to give up her seat on the bus. I can't even imagine the taunts, rude comments, and hostile behavior that she had to go through. She had the courage to stand up to society and the discrimination that was against her. She knew and felt that her having to give up her seat was wrong, and she made a decision that changed her life and the world. Her one decision made the fight for equal rights more powerful. She had the courage to make that decision and then face the consequences for making that decision even though it made her life very hard. ``Courage is a hard thing to teach. You may think that you have courage only to realize you don't when faced with a tough situation or a situation that goes against your family and friends. Courage means taking a stand and treating people fairly no matter how they are different from you. Courage means standing up for your beliefs.'' Mr. Speaker, that is the winner of the ``What Rosa Parks Means To Me'' essay contest at the elementary school level, Morgan Sweere from Ida Burns Elementary School in Conway, Arkansas.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. The suggestion has been made that these amendments that have not been made in order for debate and discussion today be put in the form of a motion to recommit. Under the rules of the House, whatever motion to recommit is offered, is it accurate to say that there will be 5 minutes allotted to the proponent of that motion to recommit?

Mr. SNYDER. So if the decision is made by our side to try to combine 10 amendments that have been denied discussion on this floor today into a motion to recommit, that would work out to an average of 30 seconds to discuss nuclear proliferation, 30 seconds to discuss the pharmacy amendment, 30 seconds to discuss the policy of chaplains. Is that an accurate description of the rules of the House, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience and conduct today.

Mr. SNYDER. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, as I understand it, yesterday Mrs. Davis of California's amendment under consideration of the defense bill was in order, even though it had been considered in committee. I assume that there was no rule prohibiting the consideration of that amendment yesterday; is that correct?

Mr. SNYDER. And so when we hear this discussion today, we have heard it now with Mr. Skelton's amendment, we have heard it with Mr. Israel's amendment, that because they were considered in the House Armed Services Committee, there is no rule prohibiting their consideration during consideration of the bill on the House floor today; is that correct?

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SNYDER

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

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, under the rules that are adopted for action in the House today, a very restrictive rule was adopted by the Rules Committee not allowing certain amendments in order, including an amendment by the senior-most Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, the number two man in our leadership, Mr. Hoyer, and others. Under the rules of the House, I know that rule can be modified by the Rules Committee if it meets again. May it also be modified by unanimous consent as this day progresses to allow other amendments to be considered during the defense bill by this great Nation during a time of war?

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that occurs fairly early this morning.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very straightforward amendment supported by the entire Minnesota delegation. My understanding is it expresses very clearly that we expect people who perform equally for their government are meant to be treated equally. I also ask for the study and I support the amendment, as does this side of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment and I am unaware of anyone on our side of the aisle who opposes this amendment.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I was eating my lunch downstairs, and as a member of the committee I voted for this bill in committee, as did Mr. Skelton, and I support the bill. However, Mr. Hunter's discussion of the provision about Channel Islands National Park, Santa Rosa Island, I thought was incomplete and gave an inaccurate picture of what the situation is. I agree with Mrs. Capps. This is a provision, section 1036(c) of the bill, that should never be in the defense bill. You read the one sentence. It has nothing to do with veterans. There is not the word ``veterans'' or ``military'' anywhere in the provision. This should have been a provision that was considered by the Resources Committee. Having said that, this is the background on this situation. In 1902 a private family owned and took control of the Channel Islands. In 1986 they sold it to the National Park Service as part of the Channel Islands National Park for about $30 million and had an agreement that they could be on the island managing their own private herd of elk and deer for some period of time. In the late 1990s there was litigation brought by the National Parks and Conservation Association, and a settlement was reached between the National Park Service, the family that owns the deer and the elk, and the National Parks and Conservation Association. Everyone agreed to this settlement that has been going on now for the last decade, that by December 31, 2011, there would be no more hunting on this island because the island is shut down, about 90 percent of it, 4 to 5 months of the year. But here is the key point. Number one, this is a privately owned herd. It is the same as if Mr. Cole or Mr. Skelton had a herd of cows. This herd of deer and elk is owned not by the government, not by the National Park Service, this herd is owned by a private group. It is not the government's business to decide what to do. Second, there is not a plan, as was described by the Armed Services Committee chairman, to exterminate the herd. Here is what the plan is. And several months ago I talked to a member of the family. They love this herd. They have professionally managed this herd for years. They have trophy hunts on the island. Their intent is to move this herd off the island and find a place, they do not know where yet, I do not think, but to move it off of the island. According to the settlement that was reached, it is what I call the Wiley Rogue provision, if there are a few animals that are left that the company is having trouble, that own it, they are having trouble trapping those animals, the National Park Service has agreed to share in half of the expense of getting those last few animals, including perhaps, perhaps, if necessary, the hiring of professional hunters or helicopters or something to get them. There is not a plan to exterminate this private herd. This is a privately owned herd. It is not up to the government to exterminate it. This provision is only to help this private company get these last few animals. That is only if necessary. This provision should not have been in the defense bill.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the work that the ranking member has done on this bill, to work with Chairman Hunter, also my Personnel Subcommittee chairman, Mr. McHugh, for the work that he has done on this bill. He has given a good summary of the provisions and our concern for our men and women in uniform and their families. Mr. Chairman, you know, I hope while I rise today in support of this bill, we certainly did have disagreements on the committee, and there are Members who are not on the committee that want to have the opportunity to present their ideas also. We have approved one rule today that has made eight amendments in order. I hope tonight when the Rules Committee meets that most of the other amendments that have been requested will also be made in order. It would be ironic if while we are supporting our men and women in uniform fighting for democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq that the winds of democracy would be denied on the House floor in the consideration of the remainder of this bill tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to do is just take a minute of time here today and talk about a provision that is not in the bill. Chairman Hunter has heard some of these discussions before. But I am one of those, I think there are a fair number now, that believe that we really need to do some work on the Montgomery GI bill. And we have got some bureaucratic issues that we have to deal with here in the Congress. The GI bill for veterans, those who are in the active component, is handled by the Veterans' Committee. The GI bill for the Reserve component, our Guard and Reserve force, is handled by the Armed Services Committee, and because of that, the active component benefit has had some inflationary increase through the years. We have not done that same kind of thing on a comparable basis for the Reserve component. We also have a very unfair situation now where a person who is in the Reserve component is activated, serves overseas in a war for 12 months or longer, comes back and their enlistment contract ends. If they do not reenlist and stay in the Guard or Reserve forces, they get no GI bill benefits. That is just terribly unfair. I say that as someone who many years ago, when I was a young man, enlisted in Marine Corps for 2 years, spent 12 months and 20 days in Vietnam, came back, was discharged from the military and actually received, for my 21\1/2\ months of total Marine Corps service 45 months in the GI bill. Now, we just do not treat our Reserve component forces fairly. They could have spent 18 months in a war zone, get out of the Reserve and get no GI bill benefit. We need to work on that. Chairman McHugh has committed himself to holding hearings on this issue. I know that Chairman Buyer on the Veterans' Committee is very interested in this issue. Somehow, Mr. Chairman, we have to get the sides together on this and work through some of these issues. I appreciate your interest.