[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.

                          ____________________