[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 65 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3584-H3590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2400, BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
[[Page H3585]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the bill, H.R. 2400, be instructed to insist that no
provisions to prohibit or reduce service-connected disability
compensation to veterans for smoking-related illnesses be
included in the conference report on H.R. 2400 to offset
spending for highway or transit programs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) each will be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees is very simple. It
instructs the House conferees to protect veterans' health care by
rejecting any reduction in service-connected disability compensation to
veterans for tobacco-related illnesses and then using those cuts to pay
for increased highway and transit spending.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that when the transportation bill passed, it
was a bloated budget-busting bill that staked a claim on more than $217
billion in Federal resources for roads, bridges, and mass transit over
the next 6 years, 40 percent more than the levels provided in the
previous legislation.
The bill, as it left the House, is not paid for at all. So it is no
surprise that BESTEA conferees have been struggling for weeks to find
the ways to pay the check now that it has to be paid.
Mr. Speaker, even though conferees have apparently trimmed the total
tab on the bill to somewhere around $200 billion, it is clear that they
are having trouble finding the funds they need to pay for the bill.
We know that BESTEA conferees evidently planned to use a combination
of directed scorekeeping provisions, smoke and mirrors, and what is the
unkindest cut of all, a reduction in veterans' compensation for
smoking-related illnesses.
Mr. Speaker, the Minge amendment which has just been noticed will be
offered tomorrow because, as you know, the Office of Management and
Budget has estimated that savings of $17 billion over 6 years could be
achieved by eliminating existing smoking-related disability benefits to
veterans who became addicted to nicotine during military service but
whose disability occurred only after they left military service.
The Congressional Budget Office has disputed the OMB estimates. Their
savings estimates are only about $10.5 billion, and many people believe
that, based on VA's current claims, that even the CBO estimate may be
too high.
Nonetheless, the Senate budget resolution counted the OMB savings as
an offset for the increased highway and transit spending, and the
conferees on the final version of the highway bill are apparently about
to adopt this overblown savings estimate, even though neither the House
nor the Senate-passed highway bills included any provision to cut
veterans' compensation.
What that directed scorekeeping means in plain English is that the
Congress would be able to bust the budget by billions of dollars and
hide the fact from the general public. That is why the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge) wants to offer the motion tomorrow in order to
try to prevent that.
Meanwhile, we are trying today in this motion to deal with the
parallel problem. Apparently, the conferees on the transportation bill
have decided to spend $9 billion on over 1,500 pork barrel projects
included in the House bill and a nondetermined number of Senate pork
projects, and would pay for that pork by cutting health care benefits
for veterans.
In short, Mr. Speaker, apparently the conferees would produce a
product which would commit highway robbery on veterans' health care.
Mr. Speaker, over 50 veterans groups and other groups oppose these
cuts in disability benefits to sick and disabled veterans, or to sick
and disabled veterans who have legitimate service-connected claims. The
organizations that oppose this action are the Veterans of the Vietnam
War; Vietnam Era Veterans Association; Vietnam Veterans of America; the
Air Force Sergeants Association; American Ex-Prisoners Of War; American
Paraplegia Society; Association of the U.S. Army; Blinded Veterans
Association; Brotherhood Rally of all Veterans Organization; Catholic
War Veterans, U.S.A.; The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of
the United States; Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A.; Legion of Valor
of the U.S.A.; Military Chaplains Association of the U.S.A.; Military
Order of the Purple Heart; National Amputation Foundation; National
Association for Uniformed Services; National Association of County
Veterans Service Officers; National Association Of Military Widows;
National Coalition For Homeless Veterans; Noncommissioned Officers
Association; Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs; Polish Legion of
American Veterans; The Retired Officers Association; Society Of
Military Widows; U.S. Merchant Marine Veterans of World War II, and so
on, and so on.
{time} 1745
Also I have received a number of letters today from organizations
that I did not mention, including the American Legion. I would quote
briefly from some of these letters.
The letter from the American Legion says:
Simply put, Members who support rescinding future veterans
benefits to pay for highways and mass transit projects should
be ashamed of their actions.
The Disabled Americans Veterans letter reads in part as follows:
Your effort to introduce a motion to instruct the House
conferees on H.R. 2400 not to use so-called ``savings'' from
disability compensation for the highway fund is greatly
appreciated.''
AMVETS, they say as follows:
AMVETS strongly supports your motion to instruct conferees
on H.R. 2400 not to use veterans' money to pay for these
highway projects.
Vietnam Veterans of America:
We feel very strongly that this anti-veteran provision must
be stricken from the ISTEA conference report. The fact that
Congress is considering taking $16 billion away from veterans
compensation in order to increase spending in the Intermodal
Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act is an affront to
every American who served in the military.
The VFW says as follows:
All Members of the House and Senate must certainly be aware
by now of the VFW's outrage regarding the initiative to
deprive veterans of the VA compensation to which they are now
entitled. This callous assault on veterans in need is made
all the more egregious by the fact that the resulting savings
are being used to pay for pork-barrel spending in the budget-
busting transportation bill.
I have a number of other letters which I will submit for the Record.
I would simply ask the House, Mr. Speaker, to vote for this
amendment, and I would ask those who vote for it not to do so if they
then intend to allow the conferees to come back and, through
indirection, accomplish indirectly what we are trying to prohibit
directly here today.
Mr. Speaker, this highway bill should not be paid for by cutting back
veterans' compensation or veterans' health care benefits. The House
originally said when it passed this bill it would not do that. The
chairman of the committee put out a press release indicating that he
was strongly opposed to doing that. I would hope, therefore, that the
committee would stick to their original promise and not in fact allow
it to happen, what we have been told from a number of sources they
intend to let happen without this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letters from veterans
groups referred to earlier:
The American Legion,
Office of the National Commander,
Washington, DC, May 20, 1998.
David R. Obey,
Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Obey: The American Legion fully
supports your motion to instruct House Conferees on H.R.
2400, Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity
Act (BESTEA) of 1998, that insist no provisions to prohibit
or reduce service-connected disability compensation to
veterans for tobacco-related illnesses be included in the
conference report on H.R. 2400 to offset spending for highway
or transit programs.
Your motion would uphold Congress' moral, ethical and legal
responsibilities with regard to veterans service-connected
injuries or illnesses that resulted from addiction to tobacco
while serving in the armed forces. Furthermore, your motion
would uphold the Sense of the Congress language, contained in
section 1001 in the House passed BESTEA legislation, ``to not
include any provision
[[Page H3586]]
making a change in programs or benefits administered by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.''
Simply put, members who support rescinding future veterans
benefits to pay for highways and mass transit projects should
be ashamed of their actions. The American Legion appreciates
your leadership, commitment and dedication to ensure Congress
remains the protector and guardian of veterans benefits and
not reckless financial raiders.
Sincerely,
Anthony G. Jordan,
National Commander.
____
Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 20, 1998.
Hon. David Obey
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Obey: All members of the House and Senate must
certainly be aware by now of the VFW's outrage regarding the
initiative to deprive veterans of the VA compensation to
which they are now entitled for their smoking-related
disabilities. It is for this reason that we strongly support
and applaud your motion to instruct the Conferees to the
Transportation Bill that no savings realized by prohibiting
or reducing veterans service-connected disability
compensation be used to offset spending for highway or
transit programs.
This callous assault on veterans in need is made all the
more egregious by the fact that the resulting savings are
used to pay for pork barrel spending in the budget busting
Transportation Bill. We emphasize our amazement and chagrin
that the language to change the law and deny such VA
compensation as contained in the Transportation Conference
Report is in clear violation of House Rules. It clearly
usurps the authority and jurisdiction of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee. This action further violates House rules
in that neither the House nor State version of this bill
contains such a provision.
We are both incredulous and outraged that certain lawmakers
would so distort and violate House rules for the sole purpose
of denying veterans earned compensation. That the resultant
savings are to be used to pay for excessive spending brought
about by their own vote-buying pork is scandalous. The VFW
salutes you for your courage in resisting this anti-veteran
assault and pledge to work together with you in seeing its
defeat.
Sincerely,
John E. Moon,
Commander-in-Chief.
____
Disabled American Veterans,
Washington, DC, May 20, 1998.
Hon. David Obey,
Ranking Democratic Member, House Appropriations Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Obey: Veterans across this Nation are
outraged that Congress would consider robbing veterans'
disability compensation programs to fund an already bloated
transportation program. Your effort to introduce a Motion to
Instruct the House Conferees on H.R. 2400 not to use so-
called ``savings'' from disability compensation for the
highway fund is greatly appreciated.
On behalf of the more than one million members of the
Disabled American Veterans (DAV), I commend you for your
efforts to protect veterans and their dependents and
survivors.
We will be calling upon all DAV and Auxiliary members to
contact their elected officials to encourage their
Representative to support your motion.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of America's sick and
disabled veterans.
Sincerely,
Harry R. McDonald, Jr.,
National Commander.
____
Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc.,
Washington, DC, May 20, 1998.
Hon. David Obey,
Ranking Democratic Member, House Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Obey: On behalf of the membership of
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA), I write to strongly
support your motion to instruct the House conferees on H.R.
2400, related to the provision which would prohibit service-
connected disability compensation for veterans with tobacco-
related illnesses. VVA feels very strongly that this anti-
veteran provision MUST be stricken from the ISTEA conference
report.
The fact that Congress is considering taking $16 billion
away from veterans compensation programs in order to increase
spending in the Intermodal Surface Transportation and
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) is an affront to every American who
served in the military. And the fact that Congress may cut
veterans disability compensation only days before the
national celebration of Memorial Day is an outrage. This is
outright disregard of the service and sacrifice made by these
veterans and their families.
Holding a vote on your motion to instruct conferees is the
only way we can put House members on record for making this
choice--pork-barrel transportation projects versus veterans
disability and health care programs. VVA strongly urges every
member of the House of Representatives to vote for your
motion, Mr. Obey. Our members will look to this vote as a
definitive indication of each elected House member's support
for veterans--or lack of support.
VVA greatly appreciates your initiative and support on
behalf of our nation's 25 million veterans and their
families. We are very hopeful that you will prevail in this
effort to insist that no provisions are included in the ISTEA
conference report to prohibit or reduce service-connected
veterans disability benefits.
Sincerely,
George C. Duggins,
National President.
____
AMVETS,
National Headquarters,
Lanham, MD, May 20, 1998.
Hon. David Obey,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Obey: As you are already aware, there
is an outrageous proposal to terminate benefits for service-
connected disabled veterans to increase spending on pork
barrel highway projects. We ask you to vigorously oppose this
scheme.
AMVETS strongly supports your motion to instruct conferees
on H.R. 2400 not to use veterans' money to pay for these
highway projects. The Senate Budget Resolution and some
members of the conference committee on Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) want to create $10.5
billion in savings by eliminating compensation and resulting
priority VA health care for veterans with illnesses
associated with addiction to nicotine which occurred during
military service.
Denying these benefits is an unprecedented move. But worse,
many in the House and Senate want to use the $10.5 billion as
offsets to increase highway spending above levels set last
year in the Balanced Budget Act.
Supporters of this ``grab'' for veterans dollars have
spread many false and misleading facts about the impact of
terminating these service-connected benefits. This is not a
new benefit and it will affect more veterans than just those
suffering from smoking related illnesses. We see this as a
way for the Department of Veterans Affairs to begin
disallowing claims of other veterans like Atomic veterans,
Agent Orange exposure and Persian Gulf illnesses. Think about
it, if someone has lung cancer and the VA can show that he or
she smoked, they can deny the claim because they believe the
cancer was caused from smoking.
We ask you to strongly object to this proposal and we thank
you for your support on this issue.
Sincerely,
Josephus C. Vandengoorbergh,
AMVETS National Commander.
____
Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United
States of America,
Alexandria, VA, May 20, 1998.
Hon. David Obey,
Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Obey: The Non Commissioned Officers Association of
the USA (NCOA) is writing to state its strong support for
your Motion to Instruct House Conferees on H.R. 2400 to
insist that no provisions to prohibit or reduce service-
connected disability compensation to veterans for smoking-
related illnesses be included to offset spending for highway
or transit programs.
This Association is outraged that a veteran entitlement is
proposed to be summarily taken away in order to offset a bill
that is undeniably loaded with waste and election year
politics. It is NCOA's understanding that veteran's
disability compensation is not the only offset, and now
estimated at $16 billion, that is under consideration. It is
painfully clear that veterans have been once again, unfairly
singled out and targeted.
NCOA salutes your leadership on the Motion to Instruct and
this Association is dedicated to ensuring that the veteran
offset is not a part of the conference report on H.R. 2400.
Sincerely,
Larry D. Rhea,
Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs.
____
Blinded Veterans Association,
Washington, DC, May 20, 1998.
Hon. David R. Obey,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Obey: The Blinded Veterans Association (BVA),
strongly supports your motion to instruct the House Conferees
on H.R. 2400. This motion, to insist that no provisions to
prohibit or reduce service-connected disability compensation
to veterans for smoking-related illnesses, has our full
backing. BVA deeply appreciates your efforts to protect
Veteran's programs and services from the egregious offset
contained in the conference report. It is outrageous that
Veteran's programs are targeted at all for offsets for
transportation. It is even more unconscionable to learn
veterans are the only offset contained in the Report.
Again we applaud your motion and will do all we can to
assure its adoption.
Very sincerely,
Thomas H. Miller,
Executive Director.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
[[Page H3587]]
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank both my colleagues from Wisconsin,
because a bit of recent history may be in order here.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my friend on the other side
of the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to restate what
essentially we have done.
I would remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that in passing the rule for
the authorization bill there was a self-executing amendment sponsored
by myself, by the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and my colleague the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Redmond) celebrating his one year anniversary of
service in this House today.
Perhaps this will afford other Members who perhaps failed to vote for
the rule an opportunity to join with us to stand firm to protect
veterans' programs, as we stated in the rule. So, in that spirit of
bipartisanship, if this would afford Members who avoided voting for the
rule on authorization, if they want a second bite at the apple, well,
that is fine, because it also restates the intent of a majority of us
who have gone on record in this House with a vote to say absolutely,
keep veterans' programs intact; do not even contemplate spending any of
that money.
So, in that sense I am very grateful if Members from the other side
want to join with us, and perhaps some of those Members have
reconsidered their notion with the rule. So I say thank you, and I look
forward to having so many other Members stand with us.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that despite that interesting rewrite
of history on the rule, the fact is a good many of us, you bet, did
vote against the rule on the highway bill because that rule provided
for the consideration of a bill which spent over $200 billion without
telling the country in the slightest where they were going to get the
money to pay for the excess in that bill.
So the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that because that rule was self-
executing, Members never had a chance to vote specifically on that
provision. We are certainly giving them one now.
But do not kid yourself, the vote on the rule was cast against that
rule by most Members of the House who voted against it because of our
objection to the sleight-of-hand approach by which the committee was
going to be able to bring a bill to the House floor without saying how
its budget-busting was going to be paid for.
I make no apology whatsoever for the Members who voted against that
rule. It was the right thing to do from the standpoint of protecting
the taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the record that I am
pleased so many want to join us again in restating our intent to say
that veterans' funds are off limits. I have no quarrel with that with
the gentleman, but, again, we may differ on our interpretations of
history. I came to the well of this House and offered this amendment
specifically for this reason. To the extent my friend wants to join me
now and restate it in a motion to instruct conferees, I welcome that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, again, I find that to be an irrelevancy. The fact is
that my only concern with the gentleman's remarks relates not to his
position on veterans' health care. It did relate to the gentleman's
description of the vote against the rule, which was, in my view, a very
large misdescription.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois, (Mr. Evans) the ranking Democrat on the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
(Mr. EVANS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons for my support for the motion to
instruct the conferees on H.R. 2400, offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, the ranking Democratic member of the House
Committee on Appropriations. These reasons include the following:
As approved by the House, H.R. 2400 contained a provision to prevent
a reduction in or the elimination of any current veterans benefit to
provide ``savings'' needed to pay for or offset an increase in spending
for highways and transit programs authorized by H.R. 2400. The language
of H.R. 2400 as approved by the House and the intent of the House on
this issue is not in doubt.
Recently, the chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, the
gentleman from Arizona, Bob Stump, and I sent a letter to Speaker
Gingrich, Minority Leader Gephardt and every House member of the
Conference Committee on H.R. 2400. Twenty-two of our colleagues who are
Members of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs joined us in sending
those letters. I ask that the text of these letters be included in the
Record as part of my statement.
Our letters to Speaker Gingrich, Minority Leader Gephardt and every
House member of the Conference Committee reaffirmed the provisions in
H.R. 2400 as approved by the House which prevents a reduction in or the
elimination of any current veterans benefit to provide ``savings''
needed to pay for highways and transit programs authorized by H.R.
2400.
Additionally, as our letters note, measures relating to veterans
benefits under the rules of the House are, generally, within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, not the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure. I am sure the chairman of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure understands that the
jurisdiction of that committee does not include veterans' matters.
Our country is the most wealthy nation on the face of the planet. We
enjoy liberties and freedoms enjoyed by few others and envied by most.
It is our Nation's veterans to whom we are all indebted for the
freedoms we enjoy and too often take for granted. While I strongly
support the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1998, our Nation can pay for new roads without
committing highway robbery of veterans benefits.
In recent weeks, an aggressive print and radio advertising campaign
by leading veterans groups has pleaded with Congress to not ``rob our
veterans again!'' to offset major spending increases for highway and
transportation programs.
The concerns expressed by these veterans advocates are unfortunately
all too real.
The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated that spending for
veterans benefits will be reduced by $10.5 billion over the next 5
fiscal years by eliminating existing smoking-related disability
benefits to veterans able to show they became addicted to nicotine
while in the military. Terminating this benefit and using these
``savings'' to offset nonveteran major spending increases is, in plain
terms, a money grab at the expense of veterans. And it stands a good
chance of succeeding unless the Republican leadership takes action
during negotiations over the long overdue highway bill in the coming
days to prevent this daylight robbery.
Congress should reject a transportation funding approach which
effectively ends an existing veterans benefit. With the Congressional
Budget Office [CBO] projecting a surplus of as much as $63 billion for
this fiscal year--instead of the $15 billion projected when the House
approved its version of the highway bill--it's simply not necessary to
eliminate a veterans' benefits to provide much-needed funds for roads
and bridges.
If this daylight robbery is permitted to happen, sick and disabled
veterans--unlike recipients of Social Security disability benefits--
would no longer be eligible for compensation benefits for nicotine
addiction and resulting illnesses. This, despite the undeniable role
our Government and tobacco companies have played facilitating--if not
encouraging--veterans to smoke during their military service.
Total cigarette sales soared in the 1940's. During what a 1949
Fortune magazine article called ``the war boom in cigarette demand,''
tobacco giant Philip Morris recorded record sales in the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1945. Nearly one-third of its sales went to our
Nation's Armed Forces.
As many as 75 percent of our World War II veterans began smoking
during their military service, a number perhaps not surprising given
that cigarettes were routinely distributed free of charge to members of
the Armed Forces as part of their ``C-rations.'' Military exchanges
sold cigarettes at dramatically reduced prices. From the time of the
Civil War until 1956, the Army was required by law to provide a cheap
and nearly endless supply of tobacco to its enlisted men.
During my own service as an enlisted Marine in the Vietnam-era, smoke
breaks and ``smoke `em if you got `em'' was the way of military life.
Given this backdrop, it's not hard to understand how many veterans
began smoking and developed an addiction to nicotine during their
military service. In my view, and in the view of
[[Page H3588]]
many who served, they did so in large part because our Government and
tobacco companies made cigarettes so accessible and easy to smoke.
But while common sense and the current public debate over tobacco
would suggest that our Government should own up to its responsibilities
to American veterans on this issue, Washington politics has
unnecessarily clouded this issue for some Members of Congress.
In an era where most people are now willing to concede that the
tobacco industry is at least partly to blame for marketing to
vulnerable populations and for concealing the dangers of smoking from
the public at large, some in Congress apparently believe America's
veterans singularly had a unique ability to accurately foresee the
consequences of their tobacco use. At a time when documents uncovered
during recent tobacco litigation confirm long-held suspicions that for
years big tobacco knowingly concealed the dangers of smoking from the
public, the administration and some in Congress appear poised to take
the hypocritical view that veterans--unlike other Americans--should
have known better than to become addicted to nicotine during their
military service.
Veterans deserve the benefit of the doubt, not the short end of the
stick, on this issue. The conferees on the highway bill should stick to
House language which, as Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster
(R-PA) says, ``does not touch veterans benefits.'' Veterans programs or
benefits should not be used to offset spending increases in the highway
bill. There are better ways to pave roads than to break the promises we
as a nation have made to America's veterans.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting, those that say
they want to save taxpayer dollars, for 40 years big government, higher
taxes, more spending. I even remember a $16 billion pork-barrel package
when the Democrats were in power for parking garages in Puerto Rico and
sickle fin fishes in dictionaries.
But that is not the issue at hand. The issue is veterans' health
care. The FEHBP is a far bigger issue than to pay for smoking for our
veterans. Right now, civilians have the right to a wraparound program
when they come under Medicare and they can take up FEHBP. The same
person in an office in the Pentagon, a secretary gets that but someone
in the military does not get FEHBP.
There is going to be a bill on the floor that really helps, instead
of a Band-Aid, fix FEHBP. Many of us under the Watts-Moran bill want
the $100 million the first year and then to be escalated. That takes
away a Band-Aid fix.
If you are really interested in helping the military, let us not only
vote for the manager's amendment, let us support it and let us increase
it. That will add to TRICARE, it will help subvention, it will help
Medicare for the military, and it will give them FEHBP which they
should have gotten a long time ago. It is far more important than this
in the transportation bill which some are demagoging.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield four minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the former ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Veterans' Health Care.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough for Members of
Congress to just honor veterans on Veterans Day and Memorial Day. We
should honor them today, now, with this vote. Veterans may appreciate
our speeches next week on Memorial Day, but today veterans need and
they deserve our vote.
Today we have a choice. It is a clear choice. We can choose to defend
veterans' health care programs or we can vote in a few moments to allow
millions, if not billions of health care dollars going to veterans to
be spent on our highway program. Personally, I think it would be a sad
day if less than one week before Memorial Day this House votes to allow
veterans' health benefits to be cut.
But, Mr. Speaker, the voice that needs to be heard today on the floor
of this House is not my voice. The voice that deserves to be heard is
the voice of our Nation's veterans.
Let me turn to several of the letters, some of which were referred to
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in his comments.
First, the Vietnam Veterans of America said this: ``On behalf of the
membership of Vietnam Veterans of America, I write to strongly support
your motion to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 2400. The fact that
Congress may cut veterans disability compensation only days before the
national celebration of Memorial Day is an outrage. This is outright
disregard of the service and sacrifice made by these veterans and their
families.''
Signed by George Duggins, National President of Vietnam Veterans of
America.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, signed by Mr. John
Moon, Commander-in-chief, said this: ``We are both incredulous and
outraged that certain lawmakers would so distort and violate House
rules for the sole purpose of denying veterans earned compensation.''
Mr. Speaker, let us listen to the voice of Disabled American
Veterans, veterans who have continued to pay the price of war long
after the ceasefire was concluded. Harry McDonald, National Commander
of DAV, said this: ``We will be calling upon all DAV and Auxiliary
members to contact their elected officials to encourage their
Representative to support your motion,'' the Obey motion.
Mr. Speaker, let us listen to the Members of the American Legion,
Anthony Jordan, National Commander: ``The American Legion fully
supports,'' Mr. Obey, ``your motion to instruct House conferees on H.R.
2400. Your motion would uphold Congress' moral, ethical and legal
responsibilities with regard to veterans service-connected injuries or
illnesses that resulted from addiction to tobacco while serving in the
armed forces.''
Let us listen to the voice, Mr. Speaker, of America's AMVETS. ``This
is not a new benefit and it will affect more veterans than just those
suffering from smoking-related illnesses.'' They go on in their letter
to support Mr. Obey's motion.
Finally, let us hear from the voice of blinded Americans, the Blinded
Veterans Association. Its director, Thomas Miller, said this: ``The
Blinded Veterans Association strongly supports,'' Mr. Obey, ``your
motion to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 2400.
{time} 1800
``It is outrageous that veterans' programs are targeted at all for
offsets for transportation. It is even more unconscionable to learn
veterans are the only offset contained in the report.''
Mr. Speaker, I hope in a few moments the Members of this House, most
of whom will go home to speak with veterans on Memorial Day, will
listen now to the voices of our veterans who have served our country.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, do I have the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) has the right to close.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me be very brief, and perhaps those speakers will not be back by
the time I finish and we can wrap it up with concluding remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I want to report that the bipartisan leadership of our
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Oberstar) and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), as well as myself and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), our chairman, have been
working hard in a number of conference meetings, not of the full
conference, but of the leadership of the full committee in the House
and the other body. As the dean of my delegation knows, conferences are
a very difficult thing involving a lot of give and take, and we
appreciate the advice of our colleagues as we attempt to work things
out. We certainly are very aware of the concern that we all share that
we are fair to the veterans of our country.
The bill is close to being concluded, but not there. The amendment
that has been offered, or the motion to instruct that has been offered
before us is one that is helpful in that the structure of any offset
has not been determined. There are negotiations going on with OMB and
the other body and a variety of people to try to see if we cannot be
sure that there are some improvements for our veterans in this bill if
they are dealt with at all.
We were under instructions to try to stick within the budget
agreement, not
[[Page H3589]]
use any offsets that could not be defended, and to minimize, to the
extent we possibly can, offsets that the administration had indicated
they were going to come forward with through their budget process for
other programs.
In that spirit, we have cut back significantly on the size of this
bill. When it passed the House it was at $217 billion, it is currently
being contemplated and scored at about $200 billion over 6 years, all
of which would come in gas tax revenue, paid at the pump for
transportation by the American motorists. The actual scoring effort
should mean that we would be within that figure, but still keep the
principle that new money coming in in user fee revenues be used to try
to make our highways more safe, save lives and improve our Nation's
competitiveness.
Again, these motions can be offered to conferences. They have been
offered in the past by members of my party when the roles were
reversed, and we appreciate the concern that the motion represents, and
it is a give and take process. We are going to do the best we can, but
we are going to try to come back with a product at the end of the day
that is an improvement over current law and that all Members will be
proud to support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
16 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to use all the time, but let
me yield myself such time as I may consume to simply recount what is
happening here.
When this bill first came to the floor, a number of us warned at the
time that if the rule was adopted for the consideration of the bill,
and if the bill was passed, we would set in motion a series of events
that would be totally unpredictable. The bill did not tell us how the
overage, above the amount allowed in the budget that this Congress so
vociferously adopted last year, the bill did not tell us how that
overage would be paid for; it left it silent. We warned at the time the
bill was being considered that there were rumors that it would be paid
for by reductions in veterans' health care; we warned that there were
also rumors that it might be paid for, in part, by eliminating the
President's education initiatives, and we urged Members not to vote for
a bill until they knew where the money was coming from to pay for it.
The House disregarded those warnings and they voted for the bill.
Now, we are being told by many sources that the conferees in fact do
intend to pay for the excess above the amount allowed in last year's
budget agreement by in fact directing scoring on this veterans' health
care item, and therefore, they intend to pay for approximately $16
billion in highway funds by the same long-term cutbacks in veterans'
health care. We are told that that is virtually the only item at this
point that has been tentatively agreed to by the conferees.
Now, that is why we are bringing this motion, because we have moved
from the general concern to the specific.
I would ask every Member of this House who cares about our commitment
to veterans to vote for this motion, but I would ask the committee not
to accept this motion if they intend to accept it, pat the House on the
head, simply give Members a vote to cover their tails on veterans'
health care issues, and then proceed to come back to the House with a
bill that does something similar to what we are trying to prohibit in
this motion.
If we intend to in fact reduce benefits for veterans, then do not, I
would say to the committee, encourage Members to vote for this motion
today. Let us play it on the square. This motion should be passed and
the conferees should not, in fact, bring a bill back to the House which
does violence to the instruction contained therein.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if I could just ask the distinguished
gentleman one question. In my 8 years in the House, I do not think
there has been anything close to a proposed $15 billion cut in
veterans' programs. I know the gentleman has been here a number of
years longer than I have, and my question to the gentleman would be, in
all of the years he has been in this body, has there ever been a
proposal passed that would have cut as much as $15 billion out of
veterans' health care programs?
To my knowledge, that has never occurred, and if that is true, what
the gentleman is basically trying to stop today and what Members are
going to vote on in just a minute is whether or not they want to allow
the largest single cut in our time for veterans' health care benefits.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would simply say to the
gentleman from Texas, I certainly do not know of any time in the time
that I have been in this Congress when we have even contemplated
reducing veterans' benefits by such a large amount, and I would hope
that we see nothing like that in the bill that is being reported by the
committee, or that will be reported by the committee very shortly.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I
appreciate the gentleman's comments and his leadership in defending
veterans programs.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if I could continue, I would simply say that I
believe strongly in additional funds for highway construction. I have
led the fight early and often, both in the legislature and in the
Congress, for a greater commitment to transportation infrastructure
development and certainly to highways. I take a back seat to no one in
placing highways as a high priority on my scale, but they are not my
only priority, and I certainly would not rank them above veterans'
health care. I find it especially disturbing that these veterans'
health care cuts apparently are being contemplated in order to pay for
a record number of special projects for Members and their districts.
Notice of Intention to Offer Motion to Instruct on H.R. 2400, Building
Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1998
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the remainder of my time,
pursuant to clause 1(c) of House rule XXVIII, I hereby notify the House
of my intention tomorrow to offer the following motion to instruct
House conferees on H.R. 2400, Building Efficient Surface Transportation
and Equity Act of 1998.
To wit: I move that the managers on the part of the House at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R.
2400, be instructed to limit the aggregate number of earmarked highway
demonstration projects included in the conference report on H.R. 2400
to a number that does not exceed the aggregate number of such highway
demonstration projects earmarked during the 42 years since the
enactment of the Highway Trust Fund in 1956.
In other words, I do not believe that veterans' health care should be
cut back in order to provide funding for the amount of highway projects
which exceeds the total of all special projects provided in that bill
in the 42 years since the enactment of the Highway Trust Fund.
Having given that notice, I would urge an ``aye'' vote on this
motion.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the Motion
to Instruct Conferees offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Obey.
This motion instructs BESTEA conferees not to cut benefits for
veterans to pay for the transportation bill.
The House already agreed with this position last month when we passed
H.R. 2400. Our version of BESTEA included language that called for any
increased spending by conferees not change any veterans programs.
I believe in BESTEA. I voted for BESTEA. I think a strong
transportation system is vital to our continued economic development
and our national security.
However, we owe a debt to our veterans. We cannot let them down by
denying currently available benefits to fund even the worthiest
projects.
The transportation bill is not the place to modify veterans benefits.
That is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee. Any changes should be for the benefit of the veterans.
Over the last several months, the DAV, the VFW, the American Legion,
and all of the major veterans' service organizations, have urged
Congress to reject the VA's proposal to
[[Page H3590]]
deny service-connected disability compensation for disabilities related
to tobacco use.
They want to know why service-connected disability compensation
should be taken away from seriously ill veterans or their survivors.
They want to know why these benefits are seen as a waste.
After all, these benefits are not just given to each and every
veteran that smoked. Veterans must undergo a rigorous claims process to
establish their entitlement to these benefits. So far, only 299
veterans even qualify for this benefit.
It is unfair to ask those who have already served to keep making
sacrifices time and time again.
Veterans are already being asked to forego long overdue increases for
veterans programs: increases in Montgomery GI funding to keep up with
the rising costs of education; certain survivors' benefits; improved
disability benefits.
What are we going to tell our veterans?
I urge passage of the motion.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Obey motion to
instruct the highway authorization conferees not to allocate veteran
program benefits to offset part of the cost of the highway bill.
We must recognize for the first time in 50 years the United States
has realized a budget surplus. Although funding for the Social Security
must be the highest priority, there should be sufficient funds for
other important programs, such as the highway bill.
I am deeply concerned this provision is an attempt to make the
benefits of those who have served us so well in our fight for the
preservation of freedom a repository to be tapped. The military
encouraged the tobacco habit by issuing cigarettes to its members as
part of their rations. The Services encouraged the smoking habit before
they knew the consequences of this action. This provision as written
could deny veterans medical health care. So how can we, as a nation
which cherishes its democracy, not take responsibility for our action.
We must also recognize that the Veterans Administration is being
deliberate in granting service connected compensation for tobacco
related illnesses. Veterans must prove that the addiction to nicotine
in these cases occurred prior to separation from the service. To date
there have been approximately 9,000 claims for tobacco related illness
and of those 9,000, 4,000 have been denied; and a maximum of 299
allowed.
We, as a nation owe a great debt of thanks to those who have served
in our military and in return promised to provide for their medical
needs for life. Let us not renege on our promise. Veterans did not
question when they were asked to go into combat and risk their lives to
defend this great nation and the value it still stands for. Veterans
met the challenge laid before them and continue to contribute to the
betterment of their communities. It is an egregious act to offset the
BESTEA reauthorization bill on the backs of our faithful veterans who
have defended us in our time of need. I support the Obey motion to
instruct the BESTEA conferees to refrain in the use of the veteran
compensation provision as an offset. To deny veterans compensation for
tobacco related illness to pay for the transportation bill is an insult
to those who stood in the gap; placing their lives on the line to
preserve the freedom, this democracy, we so cherish.
Let us search for a solution that keeps promises we made to veterans.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 422,
nays 0, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 174]
YEAS--422
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Bateman
Carson
Clay
Gonzalez
Harman
Meeks (NY)
Pelosi
Pryce (OH)
Schumer
Stabenow
{time} 1831
Messrs. GILCHREST, COBURN, GANSKE, and RIGGS changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________