[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.




                          ____________________