[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 89 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7670-S7675]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE RESTRUCTURING AND REFORM ACT OF 1998--
CONFERENCE REPORT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know I am going to be joined on the
floor in a moment. I had a chance to speak earlier today on the floor
of the Senate. But unless there is some tabling motion--and there may
not be opportunity for full debate and discussion--I told my colleague
from Washington that I would just begin to speak about an issue that
she is going to raise on the floor of the Senate. I guess the Senator
from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, will also speak to this
because he has been raising this question over and over again. The
three of us really have focused on this.
This, again, has to do with what I talked about earlier today on the
floor of the Senate--compensation to veterans with tobacco-related
illnesses.
There was the hope on the part of the veterans community--the Chair,
I think, would be interested in this--that there would be compensation
to veterans having to do with addiction to tobacco. That is to say, in
many ways it was handed out like candy. These veterans say, ``Look, if
there are going to be rules for compensation, the same rules should
apply to us.'' That seems fair to deal with some of the health care
struggles and illnesses with which they have to deal.
That was the first preference. I want to go on to add--now I am
speaking for myself--if not direct compensation for veterans, then at
least the money that is saved by not providing that compensation should
go to veterans. The Office of Management and Budget, I think, estimated
savings of something like $17 billion. I personally think that is too
high an estimate, but that is a whole other issue. But if not the $17
billion for compensation, then at least it seems to me that money ought
to go to veterans' health care.
I could spend hours and hours--I will not--talking about all the ways
in which veterans fall between the cracks. I actually found this to be,
I think, probably the greatest education I have
[[Page S7671]]
had since I have been a U.S. Senator, having to do with my dealings
with veterans. I have been just amazed by how much veterans really need
health care coverage, and it is not provided; veterans that are
homeless; veterans struggling with PTSD, on and on. I think there is a
whole lot that needs to be done.
Let me say to those who follow veterans' health care issues that we
have a flat-line budget that does not take into account really the
inflation in medical costs, and I don't think takes into account
demography, because more veterans are living to older age. We have a
reliance on third-party payments that I am not sure is going to come
through. If we ever get back to the VA housing bill--I hope we will--I
will have an amendment that deals with that. We have, as I said before,
a population that is living to be 85 and beyond, and I don't think we
have figured out yet what to do about that.
We also have the problem of compensation for atomic veterans who have
been waiting years for justice. I intend to be out here with a piece of
legislation for an up-or-down vote on this. These are men and women
that went to ground zero in Nevada and Utah without any protective
gear. So many of them have died from cancer. So many of their children
and grandchildren have had illnesses. So many of them have struggled.
We should expand the list of radiogenic diseases that are covered, that
are presumptive diseases, because they still aren't getting
compensation. It was a terrible thing the government did. It was a
terrible thing. We lied to them. They should have been given protective
gear. They should have been told what they were going to be exposed to.
They weren't.
My point is that on each and every one of these issues, whether they
get direct compensation or not, at the very least that money ought to
be put into veterans' health care. Instead, what happened is when the
ISTEA highway bill went from the Senate to the House, all of a sudden a
whole bunch of new projects got added on. The question becomes, How can
we afford it? What is the ``offset''? For those watching this
discussion on the floor of the Senate, that means, Where do you get the
money from? Where the money was taken from was the $17 billion that the
veterans community thought would, in fact, go to direct compensation
for them and their families, or at the very least would go into
veterans' health care. That is exactly what happened. That is what
happened on the bill.
When that bill came back here, when it passed the Senate, I voted
against that bill. Then for complicated reasons there were some changes
that needed to be made in a technical correction bill, and Senator
Rockefeller stepped forward. I was pleased to join him. And he said,
``Look, when that technical correction bill comes before the floor of
the Senate, I will have an amendment to essentially knock out the
provision that took $17 billion, or however you score it, away from the
veterans community.'' We went through a debate on this. We reached an
impasse.
The majority leader then decided the way he would deal with this is
we would just put the technical corrections for the highway bill in the
IRS conference report. So this conference committee dealing with this
Internal Revenue Service bill essentially took the technical
corrections for ISTEA and put it into the IRS conference report, which
means we can't amend it.
So when Senator Murray comes to the floor of the Senate, she is going
to be, I think, appealing the ruling of the Chair. She is going to talk
about what happened having been outside the scope of the IRS conference
committee. In other words, there was no chance for discussion on the
technical corrections bill about what happens to veterans compensation
and health care, and so on and so forth. The technical corrections just
got put into the IRS conference committee.
So we will have that debate on the floor of the Senate. Senator
Murray will be out here taking the lead. I thank her for that, because
I actually think that what was done was a real injustice.
Let me say to colleagues, I think the Congressional Budget Office
scored this at about $10 billion, and then the OMB scored it at $17
billion. In some ways, it gets to be sort of funny money. But in any
case, the higher figure was chosen because that gave some of our
colleagues the opportunity to load more projects onto the ISTEA highway
bill and gave them more of an offset. But in all due respect, I say
this to all of my colleagues, the veterans community is going to hold
us accountable on this.
I hope people will listen very carefully to what Senator Murray has
to say, and I hope we have an initiative similar to the initiative
which Senator Dorgan took. And we will have a very strong vote.
For my own part, if we don't win on this--and I hope we do--I think
it ought to go back to conference committee. I think this provision
dealing with the technical corrections should be knocked out because I
think we should have a separate vote on the technical corrections bill.
Then we should be able to come out here with an amendment and have an
up-or-down vote as to whether or not the $17 billion that should have
gone to compensation for veterans and their families, or at least into
health care for the veterans community, should or should not be there
as opposed to transferring it to the highway bill.
That is the issue. There is no way people here are going to be able
to avoid it. One way or another, I think people are going to hear from
the veterans community. And they should hear from the veterans
community.
So we will shortly, when Senator Murray returns, have this
discussion. I assume that this question will be before the Senate.
For my own part, if we don't win, though I hope we do win, I think
what I want to do is keep coming back over and over again and basically
raise the same question and forcing votes. We can have the same votes
over and over and over again. People can play around this however they
want to. People can vote against the proposition that we honestly ought
to have taken the $17 billion that should have gone for veterans'
compensation and health care and kept it there, or people can vote
whether it should be transferred to the highway bill for different
projects that were added on in the House. We should have a strong vote
in the Senate on this question. Or people can vote one way, and then
kind of just look the other way while in the conference committee it
gets done.
But regardless of what we do procedurally, regardless of what we do
process-wise, I want to remind colleagues one more time on the floor of
the Senate that this was a real injustice. I don't know how people
justify it. I don't know how people justify it.
First issue: The veterans community says, ``Look, if we are going to
be talking about compensation for people who are addicted to tobacco,
do you know what happened to us when we were serving our country?
Cigarettes were handed out to us like candy.'' So we asked for some
compensation. We are paying the price for that addiction to tobacco. We
asked for the compensation. They don't get the compensation. Then I
say, and I think other veterans say this as well, if not the direct
compensation, at least over the next 5 years put it into veterans'
health care. Put it into the veterans' health care system. There is not
one Senator here who spends any time back in his or her State with the
veterans community who doesn't know that this is a system in need of
reform. Dr. Kizer has moved forward with some good initiatives; some
other initiatives I question. I think he has provided good leadership.
But we should be doing much, much more. Much, much more.
What about Vietnam vets? More drop-in centers? Senator Akaka has done
a great job of leading the way for drop-in centers for Vietnam vets and
other veterans. What about other veterans who struggle with post-
traumatic stress syndrome? What about veterans who are homeless, many
of them struggling with substance abuse? What about elderly veterans?
What about veterans who fall between the cracks, and they don't have a
direct service-connected disability illness and they are not low-income
and therefore they are not eligible? And so on and so forth.
This is a system that needs to be put on a more solid financial
footing. This is a system that needs to do better by way of veterans.
This is a health care system that faces many challenges. And what we
did is we took the $17 billion that should have been direct
compensation for these veterans who are
[[Page S7672]]
addicted to tobacco--or at a minimum should have been put into
veterans' health care--and we used the money to offset the cost of a
whole variety of different projects, mainly highway projects added on
to the ISTEA bill in the House of Representatives. And then when
Senator Rockefeller and some of the rest of us wanted to amend the
technical corrections bill to knock out that transfer of funds away
from the veterans community to highways, we never had the opportunity
to do so. The majority leader didn't want an up-or-down vote.
You can do all you want with procedure and process. But you still
have to be held accountable. But instead, we got another end run. We
have the technical corrections bill folded into the conference report,
completely outside the scope, as far as I can see, of any IRS reform
bill, thus denying us the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote.
Senator Murray will come here and challenge that, saying it was
beyond the scope of the conference committee, and we will vote on this
issue. I look forward to when she comes out in the Chamber and when we
have that vote. And I say to colleagues, please, focus your attention
on what was done, because I do not see how we explain this away to
people in the veterans community.
I hope I am not boring people with this argument. I keep repeating it
over and over again, but I don't see how you explain to people that the
money which should have gone to them by way of compensation--and, as a
second choice, at least into their health care system--instead got
transferred to paying for people's highway projects.
Does anybody want to debate anybody in the veterans community about
this? Does anybody want to defend this in any VFW hall or American
Legion hall? How about the Vietnam Vets of America? How about the
Paralyzed Veterans of America? How about the Disabled American
Veterans? How about the Atomic Veterans? How about the Military Order
of the Purple Heart? Do any of my colleagues want to defend this? I
think this is a tough one, and I hope that we can take corrective
action.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks today by
reiterating my strong support for the underlying bill that is before us
to reform the Internal Revenue Service. This is a good bill and it is
really long overdue. I want to join my numerous colleagues who have
complimented Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan and others who have
worked very hard and long on this legislation. I have listened to my
colleagues all day talk about the benefits of that bill, and I add my
comments to that in support of that as well.
Despite my strong support for this underlying bill, I am deeply
concerned about title IX of this conference report, because hidden deep
within this bill in title IX is language to take some $17 billion from
America's veterans. Several of my colleagues have been addressing this
issue today, and I associate myself with the remarks of Senator
Rockefeller, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Durbin. I know Senator
Wellstone has taken quite a bit of time to outline what is in this
bill, and I thank him for his words, his comments, and his support.
Title IX is the technical corrections language for the transportation
legislation. Hidden within that is a provision that takes away
disability benefits from veterans whose illness resulted from smoking.
Many of these veterans, as my colleagues know, were encouraged to smoke
during wartime service with free cigarettes that were provided by our
armed services. I am outraged by this language, and I am sure that many
of my colleagues in the Senate are as well. I know Senator Chafee, who
is the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, has spoken to this issue. I have immense respect for Senator
Chafee and for his leadership in crafting the very important TEA 21
legislation, the transportation bill that passed. Transportation is a
critical and important issue.
However, let me be very clear. I continue to oppose the veterans
offset used to fund the increases in transportation. The chairman
argued that this is not a controversial matter, that the Senate has
already spoken. With all due respect, I disagree. If this issue is so
noncontroversial, why are we debating it within the IRS reform bill?
This legislation has nothing to do with the veterans bill. If this
issue is truly noncontroversial, then let's have a stand-alone debate
on the issue of cutting $17 billion in veterans' benefits. The
technical corrections bill is at the desk. We could have a time
agreement on that. It could pass very quickly. It does not need to be
included in the IRS reform legislation. It has nothing to do with the
IRS reform legislation.
I ask, and I believe all of my colleagues should ask the question,
Why on Earth is the IRS reform legislation used to take money from our
American veterans? It is a very legitimate question. The original
Senate version of the IRS reform did, of course, not target veterans,
and neither did the House bill, the IRS reform bill. Somehow the
conference committee agreed to add the technical corrections for the
highway legislation to this bill on IRS reform. I am assuming that this
action was taken at the direction of leadership, since I know that the
Finance Committee does not have jurisdiction over the veterans funding
issue. The IRS bill is viewed as politically popular and a cinch to
pass. That, I would guess, is why the veterans cuts were added to this
bill. The proponents of this veterans grab want to avoid
accountability. That is wrong, and that is why I am opposed to title IX
of the underlying bill being included in this bill. The proponents
figured that we would just roll over and accept these wrongful cuts
because everyone wants to reform the IRS.
I have been fighting this veterans grab all year. It was in the
President's budget, and I opposed it. At the Budget Committee, I voted
against Democratic and Republican proposals that included these
disastrous cuts to veterans health. On the Senate floor, I voted
against the budget one final time in opposition to these cuts to
veterans. During consideration of the budget, I was pleased to join
with Senator Rockefeller and others to fight against these cuts. I
voted against the Craig-Domenici amendment to validate the $10 billion
cut in veterans funding. Sadly, the Senate budget resolution paved the
way for the transportation bill to use the veterans savings to offset
the increased transportation funding.
I want to be sure that my colleagues are aware that the technical
corrections language punishing veterans that is included in this IRS
bill is opposed by virtually every veterans service organization. Many
of them have written and contacted me in opposition to the cuts,
including the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the
Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the
Disabled American Veterans.
Senators need to know that this issue has touched a nerve with
America's veterans. They are deeply offended that the Congress and the
administration would divert money targeted to care for sick veterans to
pay for other spending priorities. This issue is not going to go away.
America's veterans and many in Congress will continue to fight this
battle. We simply must revisit this issue and do the right thing for
America's veterans, and the time is now. The best way to do that is to
remove the language from this nonrelated IRS reform bill and vote on
the issue separately.
I ask unanimous consent now to have printed in the Record a letter
from the American Legion that I recently received.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The American Legion,
Washington, DC, July 2, 1998.
Dear Senator: The American Legion ask you to recommit the
IRS Restructuring conference report back to the conferees
with instructions to strip out H.R. 3978, the technical
corrections language to the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA 21).
[[Page S7673]]
Urge the Senate leadership to allow H.R. 3978 to be debated
on the floor as a stand along bill. Also encourage the Senate
leadership to allow an ``up-or-down'' vote on Senator
Rockefeller's amendment to H.R. 3978 that would strike the
veteran's disability compensation offset included in the TEA
21 highway legislation. The TEA 21 correction bill should not
be part of the IRS Restructuring conference report.
Subsidizing the highway trust fund with $15.4 billion in
offsets from veterans compensation is just plain wrong. This
is a grave injustice to America's disabled veterans who
became addicted to tobacco during military service. The
suggestion that approximately 500,000 veterans would file
tobacco-related claims each year is ridiculous. Since 1993,
approximately 8,000 veterans have filed claims for tobacco-
related illnesses and less than 300 claims have been granted.
The American Legion fully acknowledges that Members of
Congress recognize and appreciate veterans' contributions to
our country. Unfortunately, many legislators have not been
provided an honest opportunity to cast a fair vote with
regard to veterans suffering from tobacco-related illnesses
as demonstrated by the recent vote on the TEA 21.
Once again, The American Legion ask you to recommit the IRS
Restructuring conference report back to the conferees with
instructions to strip out H.R. 3978, the technical
corrections language to TEA 21. Encourage the leadership to
debate H.R. 3978 as a stand alone bill and ask for the
opportunity to have an ``up-or-down'' vote on the Rockefeller
amendment. Veterans and Members of Congress deserve a fair
vote! Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Steve A. Robertson,
National Legislative Commission.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Legion again urges all U.S. Senators
to reject this language targeting veterans. I implore all Senators to
review this letter before casting a vote today on this issue. I am here
to urge my colleagues to join me and others to free America's veterans
from the IRS reform legislation. Free the cuts in Veterans Affairs to a
genuine and a very public debate.
We are going to have a vote on this issue today. Regardless of
whether it is procedural or a straight-up vote, one thing is very
clear--it will be a veterans vote. I ask my colleagues to vote with me
and with America's veterans.
point of order
Therefore, Mr. President, I make a point of order that title IX of
the conference report is outside the scope of the conference, pursuant
to paragraph 2 of rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
which states:
Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not
committed to them by either House. . . . If new matter is
inserted in the report . . . a point of order may be made
against the report, and if the point of order is sustained,
the report is rejected. . . .
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not sustained.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, at the proper time I will move to table
the appeal of the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington,
but I want to let people debate on this. Obviously, a motion to table
is not debatable, so I am not going to raise the motion to table until
everybody has had a chance to have his or her say here.
Mr. President, I would make a correction, if I might, to what I
understood the Senator from Washington was saying. She seemed to
indicate that this technical corrections measure that is included
within the IRS reform--she indicates it takes $17 billion from
veterans. I argue, of course, whether there is any taking from veterans
at all, period. But the important point is that the technical
corrections measure is strictly a technical corrections measure. The
$17 billion that the Senator from Washington is referring to was a
provision that was in the conference report on H.R. 2400--in other
words, the conference report on the transportation legislation which I
like to call ISTEA II.
That was adopted by the Senate here, 88 to 5. That is where we
handled that particular measure. Then we came to the technical
corrections, and there, those technical corrections indeed do deal
strictly with technicalities.
As perhaps some will recall, we finished that bill on a Thursday
evening; we finished the negotiations with the House of
Representatives. Everybody was anxious to get off on the Memorial Day
recess, and the staff and all worked all night long and came forward
with the so-called H.R. 2400, the ISTEA II, if you would, on Friday,
the day after we negotiated late into the evening.
There we voted on the printed version, which was, to the best of our
ability, correct. But there were technical mistakes in it. At the time,
we recognized that there would be. But there is nothing, no technical
mistake about the money that, through a general counsel's opinion, had
been going to the veterans. That was taken care of, in the legislation
that we voted on, on that Friday. And this technical corrections
measure has nothing to do with that.
So I am not quite sure why the distinguished Senator from Washington
refers to this technical correction measure as taking $17 billion from
veterans. It just plain does not do that. We believe that the technical
corrections that are included in the IRS reform bill are strictly
technical and noncontroversial.
By the way, I didn't flesh out the part about what a monstrous job
this was, not only finishing it on that Thursday evening, the
negotiations and voting on the bill, but it is a 900-page bill. It
presented tremendous challenges, and inevitably some errors were made.
This technical corrections bill which has been developed jointly by
us--the Senate and the House conferees, with some input from the U.S.
Department of Transportation--is truly a technical corrections measure.
It doesn't do anything with formula allocations.
It is true that this veterans thing gets very, very confusing. The
general counsel of the Veterans' Administration came forward with a
decision that would have greatly enlarged the benefits that were
available to those who had smoking-related illnesses.
By the way, that never truly went into effect. There were some who
made applications for grants or benefits under it. But to the best of
my knowledge, I don't believe anybody actually received benefits. Their
requests were being considered.
The administration itself realized that this went way beyond anything
they were intending, and the administration itself pulled back from
that general counsel's decision and reversed it. We--that is the Senate
of the United States, the Congress--went along with that reversal and
used those funds that would otherwise have been available for general
purposes for this transportation legislation.
Mr. President, I think it is a mistake to suggest that this technical
corrections measure is anything other than what it is labeled, a
technical corrections measure that covers some of the problems that
were raised as a result of the haste that we were under with this
massive legislation when we were trying to recess for the Memorial Day
recess.
I don't know whether there is further debate to take place on this. I
am not trying to cut people off peremptorily. If the Senator from
Washington has further comments, I will give her an opportunity to
speak if she wishes.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me simply say the chairman states
correctly that the transportation bill did go through in a hurry right
before a recess, and we are now looking at technical corrections to
that bill. That bill is at the desk, and we should have an opportunity
to take a look at it, offer amendments, and vote it up or down.
Being as it is included within the IRS conference report, we don't
have the ability to do that. I think many Members would very much like
the opportunity to speak out on this issue. As we went home for the
Fourth of July recess, many people heard from veterans in their States
who are outraged this was included in the transportation bill. They
would like the opportunity to make their voices heard on that.
If we are able to override the ruling of the Chair, we will have the
opportunity to do that. That is simply what we are asking for today. It
will not hold up the IRS reform bill. We can simply move that next
week. It will allow Members to make their statements known and their
views known on
[[Page S7674]]
a very critical issue to many veterans in our country.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if I might ask the floor manager a question.
Mr. CHAFEE. Certainly.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is it not true that one of the technical corrections
has to do with the fact that those who helped write the provisions of
the law that attempted to rescind the general counsel's regulation
expanding benefits for those who smoked while in the military, that in
doing that, actually the drafter expanded that to reduce other benefits
that were for veterans who were never even intended to be covered? That
is one of the technical corrections, to return it to what it should be,
rather than to have an expanded reduction in benefits that go to
veterans. Is that not true?
Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from New Mexico is absolutely correct: Set
aside the big expansion of the program that took place as a result of
the general counsel's opinion. Set that aside. There were some veterans
receiving benefits under other programs that were related to smoking
disability problems that occurred while they were on active duty.
Inadvertently, the language in the original legislation--that is the
ISTEA conference report--eliminated some of those benefits. This
technical corrections bill that we have before us will straighten that
out and restore those benefits. In an odd way, should the Senator from
Washington prevail and this technical corrections measure be eliminated
in some fashion, it will result in a failure to cure a problem that has
arisen inadvertently.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to note with great pleasure that
I will have to support the conference committee report for the reason
that the Senator from Rhode Island has just stated in response to the
question from the Senator from New Mexico. As now provided, absent
these technical corrections, we will have existing benefits to veterans
taken away.
I am correct in my understanding, am I not, that there are existing
benefits which would be canceled in this way. I am not the least happy
about the administration's decision to override the ruling of the
general counsel of the Veterans' Administration, but that is history.
What we have here is the correction that will really be a clear
injustice to a many great persons, never intended by anybody.
So, Mr. President, I will have to support the conference report and
vote for the motion to table.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator
from Rhode Island. I happened to be upstairs in the Hart Building
working on something else and listening to Senator Patty Murray from
the State of Washington raising this very strong argument about
veterans. I previously spoke on veterans; therefore, one might think I
wasn't going to come down and give the same speech again. But when I
heard the powerful argument from the Senator from Washington and I
heard some of the responses, the Senator from West Virginia had to come
down, because this is really the only way that we can protect veterans.
We have no other choice.
I believe the Senator from Rhode Island--although I didn't hear him
say it, I know he said it in the past--this is somehow expansion of the
benefit, this is some new benefit that goes to veterans. I don't know
how to make this clear, but what we are talking about here is that,
through however it worked, the legislators who were working on this
particular piece of legislation, that started out with ISTEA and now
has come to the IRS conference report, rescinded current law.
They took current law which says that if you go through all the steps
that you have to go through in the VA to prove that you are a disabled
American veteran by virtue of your addiction to nicotine and that it
was caused and continued and it was because of your service, and all of
these steps that you have to go through, that you are entitled to
appropriated funds.
I will agree it is not money that comes from highways. I have always
said this is not money that comes from highways, either ISTEA I or
ISTEA II. But we have rescinded current law and, therefore, veterans
are being denied and will be denied--unless as the distinguished
Senator from Washington is trying to do in making a point of order--
disability benefits which are rightfully theirs under current law.
How do we come to this point? How do we allow ourselves not to
correct this? It is not a matter of spending money. It is not a matter
of taking money away from this or that highway project. It never has
been. It is simply reinstating current law which, in fact, at this
particular moment only affects 300 veterans throughout the United
States of America, because out of the 8,000 who have applied for this
disability, only 300 to this point have made it.
Now, I think we are probably talking about $200 or $300 million
total. The administration, of course, participated in this sham by
coming up with this $17 billion. Then it was $10.5 billion. And who
knew what it was, which was basically to pay for programs which they
wanted. Unfortunately, the majority party joined in on this.
So here are the veterans with nobody to speak for them, with no
legislative tools available to them, left on an unamendable conference
report on IRS which has nothing to do with veterans. And the Senator
from Washington is doing the only thing that she can do in her desire
to protect veterans, keeping their current law ability to use
appropriated funds to pay for their disability benefits. That is what
the Senator from Washington is trying to accomplish.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I know the Senator from Rhode Island wants to move to a
vote on this. Let me just conclude by saying that veterans know this
issue very clearly. They know that the language we have included in the
IRS reform validates the cuts to their ability to get health care, if
they were smoking when they were young and they now have disabilities
due to that.
They are very clear on this vote. They are very clear in what they
are saying to us. They were very clear to me over the last month. This
bill, if we vote on it this way, will cut the health care benefits of
many of our service people who started smoking when they were young.
I think that the veterans are going to be watching this issue
closely. I hope that my colleagues will support me on this so that we
can move to separately deal with the technical corrections bill in a
way that does not undermine the health care benefits of the many
veterans across this country who served our country well.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I do want to stress, once again, as I said
before, that killing the technical corrections bill is not going to
restore any $17 billion. The technical corrections bill has nothing to
do with that. It does not mention it, does not involve it at all. That
was all taken care of in the conference report.
Indeed, we voted three times on that measure. We voted on the whole
matter of the $17 billion being used in connection with the ISTEA II
legislation. We voted on it twice in connection with the budget, and we
voted on it once when we did the conference report here.
So, Mr. President, I do want to stress that should Senator Murray's
appeal of the ruling of the Chair be successful, the entire IRS reform
bill would effectively die. And so I urge my colleagues to uphold the
ruling of the Chair.
I now move to table Senator Murray's appeal of the ruling of the
Chair.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Would the Senator not agree that if the Senator from
Washington prevailed on her point, that, in fact, it would not vitiate
the IRS bill, but would simply mean that the conferees would have to go
back, the conferees themselves, and do this work and perhaps straighten
out the veterans situation and then come back to us?
Mr. CHAFEE. My understanding is there are no House conferees. The
conference has been dissolved.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That does not mean there could not be new conferees.
I mean, this is an important point.
[[Page S7675]]
Mr. CHAFEE. Well, it is a complicated way of proceeding, but it is my
understanding that this would actually kill the IRS reform.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. This Senator believes that is incorrect. It would
simply be the reestablishment of the conference committee, which could
then clear up this matter which the Senator from Washington is trying
to clear up.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for 1 minute?
Mr. CHAFEE. Sure.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me make a point to the Senate. If you do not table
this, and you accept the proposal of the distinguished Senator from
Washington, you have done two things--both of which are probably very,
very bad for our country: One, you will kill this bill; secondly, you
will dramatically cut veterans' benefits beyond anything anybody
intended. Because to eliminate these technical corrections, you leave
in place a law that is signed. The highway bill is signed into law, and
it has a mistake in it. And the mistake dramatically cuts veterans'
benefits beyond what was intended.
So it may not be the intention of the sponsors, but you will
accomplish two things, and I just stated them. And I believe that is
the case.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Would the Senator yield----
Mr. CHAFEE. No. I would like to press forward with the----
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Simply because it is this Senator's judgment that
what the Senator from New Mexico has said is in two respects incorrect.
This Senator would like to simply give his opinion, and that would be
that, No. 1, the ISTEA bill would in no way be affected. That is
signed. It would in no way be affected. Second, the IRS bill would in
no way be affected at all. It is simply a matter that the conferees--
again, new conferees--would come back, not debating the IRS bill, but
simply clearing up this matter which is of extreme importance to this
country's moral obligations to veterans.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, at this time I move to table Senator
Murray's appeal of the ruling of the Chair. And I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
They yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison)
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--48
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Hutchison
Kyl
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
motion was agreed to.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Iowa.
____________________