Lane Evans

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2116, as amended, the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act. Before I comment on some of the specific provisions of this bill, I want to thank Chairman Stump, Chairman Stearns, and the Ranking Democratic Member of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Gutierrez, for working with me to incorporate certain provisions I have long-supported in this important bill. This is an ambitious bill, but it is a bill that works in a realistic context. It takes cognizance of some disturbing trends we have seen in funding for veterans' health care, notwithstanding the Committee's support of significant funding increases. It is a bill that will better assure Congress that VA is continuing to meet veterans' vital needs for long-term care services. It is a bill that gives Congress better assurance that VA will plan effectively for ways to continue to treat veterans regardless of the health care setting. Finally, it is a bill that will allow veterans who regularly use the VA system to receive reimbursement for emergency care services. The bill also contains a ``report and wait'' requirement which responds to a concern I raised that VA is dismantling its inpatient programs without adequate planning to fulfill veterans' needs for these programs in outpatient or community settings. The provision follows other efforts Congress has put in place to ensure that important services and programs remain available to veterans as it restructures under what may be an austere budget. Since decentralizing its management, VA has closed acute inpatient beds at a pace that I believe has taken many by surprise. The hardest hit have been the beds for psychiatric, rehabilitation, and other services of a ``longer term'' nature. Unfortunately there are some indications that, instead of planning effectively to continue to meet the needs of these vulnerable patients on an outpatient basis, their care is slipping through the cracks. Long-term care remains an area of concern as VA continues to tighten its belt. Last month, I presented findings from a report done at my request to assess recent changes in VA's long-term care delivery efforts to veterans. My staff surveyed VA's Chiefs of Staff to see how VA was responding to veterans' growing need for long-term care. Survey findings indicated that there were substantial erosions in the long- term care program--VA may be treating more veterans, but it is discharging them after much shorter stays that may not satisfy their need for ongoing care. The Report concluded with several recommendations to improve VA Long-Term Care that the Millennium Plan addresses. The findings and recommendations of this report were instrumental in shaping this legislative plan for addressing long-term care in VA. The Millennium Plan establishes a good baseline for meeting veterans' needs for long-term care. We believed it was best to guarantee that veterans with the highest priority for care--those with health care conditions due to military service--receive all of the long-term care they need. The bill also requires VA to maintain its long-term care program and enhance the services it provides in the home and community. VA is under enormous financial pressure and long-term care is expensive. The survey identified some disturbing changes in VA's long-term care program that obviously stemmed from financial pressure. it is time to give VA clear direction about whom we expect VA to treat and what services we will require it to offer. I have had a long-standing interest in emergency care reimbursement. I introduced two bills in the last Congress and this year I introduced H.R. 135, the ``Veterans Emergency Health Care Act''. H.R. 135 allows VA to reimburse enrolled veterans for expenditures made during medical emergencies. Veterans who rely on VA for their health care have been financially devastated by an emergency health care episode. Veterans who try to reach VA during a health care crisis have been told by VA staff to go to the closest health care facility for treatment, but once the bills came, the VA refused to reimburse them. It seems unconscionable that VA would abandon these veterans during their greatest health care crises, but I know it happens. I also know VA wants to fix this problem. Asked to identify legislation it needs to comply with the President's ``Patient Bill of Rights'', VA indicated it would need authorization to reimburse emergency health care for the veterans it enrolled. The President ordered federal agencies to comply with the bill, yet a proposal contained in the President's budget only partially addressed VA's request for this authority. The Millennium Bill goes farther by allowing VA to reimburse any high-priority enrolled veteran for emergency care services. I have also advocated allowing more veterans to choose chiropractic care in VA. Last year I introduced a bill to establish a chiropractic service in VA which was supported by the American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractors Association. The Millennium Bill will require that VA work with chiropractors on a policy that will allow veterans' better access to their service within VA. Veterans deserve the opportunity to choose chiropractic care. The Millennium Bill contains provisions that will authorize VA to increase copayments for drugs, neurosensory devices and certain other prosthetics, and extended care. I believe the Committee must offer leadership in addressing some of these difficult issues head on. I want to make sure that VA can maintain services for veterans that rely on it for their health care--the best way we can do this is by requiring some veterans to contribute more to their health care. VA's costs for pharmaceuticals have doubled over the last ten years; allowing more veterans to acquire hearing aids and eyeglasses from VA has also put a tremendous strain on VA's ability to acquire prosthetics. We need to ask some veterans to chip in for these benefits which are not provided by most health care insurers--it's still a significant benefit for veterans. The bill addresses facility realignment which has been an understandable concern for some. Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize that VA currently has the authority to realign its medical resources, including closing hospitals. Since the VA has allowed so much of its decision making to take place in its 22 networks, Congress' ability to ensure that VA is going through a fair process in determining the need for facility closures has diminished considerably. In this bill, we provide VA with a framework that better ensures that the views of veterans, employees and other interested parties are taken into account and that VA finds the least disruptive means of continuing to care for the veterans it serves. While I do not view this legislation as supportive of such closures, I do not believe it will lead to a more constructive process for planning for major restructuring. It is abundantly clear that VA is not operating in a world of unlimited resources. I believe this bill has many positive gains for veterans while not imposing unreasonable new costs onto an already fiscally strapped system. I endorse this ambitious bipartisan legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I inform my colleagues of the recent death of John William ``Bill'' Rolen on September 14, 1999. Bill is perhaps best known for his outstanding advocacy on behalf of our Nation's former prisoners of war. Since March 1994, Bill served as the Executive Director of the American Ex-Prisoners of War. In this important position, with outstanding support from his wife Mary, Bill Rolen had a major role in assisting the Congress to respond more effectively to America's servicemen and women who were prisoners of war, their dependents and survivors. After graduation from high school in Sevierville, Tennessee, Bill entered the U.S. Army in October 1943 and spent four months in basic training at Camp Blanding, Florida. Bill subsequently joined the 45th Division in March 1944 at Anzio Beach, Italy, participated in the liberation of Rome and the invasion of Southern France. Following six months of combat, Bill was captured and spent seven months in a prisoner-of-war camp. He was awarded the Combat Infantry Badge, the European Campaign Ribbon with three battle stars, and the Prisoner of War Medal for his distinguished military service. At the end of World War II, Bill returned to Tennessee, then later trained at Coyne Electrical Training School in Chicago, Illinois. In 1950, Bill moved to Washington, DC and began his successful 34-year career with the Army Strategic Communication Command at the Pentagon. Following retirement in 1984, Bill organized the first American Ex- Prisoners of War Chapter in Northern Virginia. He continued his service to his fellow POWs throughout the remainder of his life, serving on the National Legislative Committee of the National Capitol Office for many years. Bill continued his dedicated work on behalf of POWs and their families until his last days. When the House approved H.R. 2280, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 1999, on June 29th, this bill included a provision which would allow surviving spouses of former prisoners of war to qualify for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits without requiring that the veteran have been 100% service-connected for ten years prior to death. This provision was recommended to the Committee by Bill Rolen and, as a result of his committed and articulate advocacy, an inequity in law which unintentionally penalizes spouses of former POWs will be corrected when this measure is enacted into law. I am proud to have known Bill Rolen and we are better for his dedicated service to his Nation and his fellow veterans. We will miss Bill Rolen and extend our condolences to his wife Mary, his children and grandchildren.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exemplary public service of Mr. Fred Dearborn, who is retiring after serving over 15 years as the Civilian Executive Assistant at the Rock Island Arsenal. As a tireless champion of the Arsenal and its dedicated workforce, Fred deserves the praise that comes with a job that has been well done. Fred Dearborn is one of the finest public servants I have had the pleasure to work with. He is truly a credit to the U.S. Army and its hardworking civilian employees. Fred's career in the Army has spanned over 30 years. From his days as an engineer at the Red River Army Depot to becoming the Civilian Executive Assistant at the Arsenal, he has become recognized as one of the best in the business. He is also widely known as being one of the nicest and most honest people in the Army community. These are attributes that in my mind truly sum up Fred as a person. They also reveal why he has become a recognized leader at the Arsenal, in the Army and in the Quad Cities. These leadership skills were greatly needed over the last two decades as the arsenal went through rapidly changing times. Fred served as the Civilian Executive during the military buildup of the early 80's through the drawdown of our Armed Forces during the last decade. Through his stewardship during these dramatic ups and downs, the Rock Island Arsenal became synonymous with quality and efficient work. Fred should take great pride in his role in helping to establish the Arsenal as perhaps the greatest armaments manufacturing facility in the world. Many of the numerous awards and citations recognizing the Arsenal as one of the premier facilities in the U.S. Army would not have become a reality without his hard work and foresight. Without a doubt, his work has made it a better place. Fred's contributions to the Arsenal, our community and to the Nation's defense are immeasurable. I am glad that I had his wise council during my service on the House Armed Services Committee. He truly has a knack for making the most complicated and technical issues understandable to a layman as well as the ability to see how the bigger trends in our national security policy affect the arsenal. Without his expertise and his vision, my job in promoting the arsenal and its workforce in Congress would have been much tougher. Fred's dedication to the Rock Island Arsenal has been an inspiration to those of us who believe in the value of public service. I know that he will be missed by all of those who have had the pleasure of working with him. While Fred will be retiring, I know that he will still be involved in our efforts to maintain the Rock Island Arsenal and its irreplaceable capabilities. He has chosen to remain in the Quad Cities with his wife Cheri for their hard-earned break. I hope that I will still be able to turn to him for advice in our fight to maintain the best facility in the U.S. Army. I wish Fred and his family the very best on his retirement.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this bill for a number of reasons, but primarily because it breaks our promise of health care to our nation's veterans. Many of us have worked hard to make improved funding for health care for veterans a hallmark of this Congress. I want to think the Members of both sides of the aisle for their efforts in this regard. We began this budget process with a funding proposal from the Administration that was inadequate. I believe the Administration's willingness to reconsider their initial proposal and add a billion dollars was responsible for leveraging the significant additional funds for veterans' health care this Congress is now discussing. I commend the Administration, and particularly, Vice President Gore for his leadership in the Administration's decision to increase its request for veterans medical care by $1 billion for fiscal year 2000. That said, I am going to reject this proposal for VA-HUD appropriations. It goes further in meeting some of the challenges faced by the VA health care system, but it does not go far enough. Although the add-on of $700 million the Republicans are now supporting sounds substantial, it still fails to meet the needs we have heard from VA officials both on and off-the-record. Unfortunately the Republican majority of the Committee on Rules failed to protect under the rule to consider the Edwards-Evans-Stabenow amendment to the measure before us which Republicans passed on a party-line vote. The Edwards-Evans-Stabenow amendment would have more than doubled the additional funds the appropriators added for the veterans' health care system. I regret that our efforts to delay a cut in the capital gains tax for one year will mean that veterans may not receive the VA health care that they need and the level of service that they deserve. Many VA leaders would confess that these funds would have offered welcome relief to a system now overwhelmed by veterans' new and growing demand for health care. Additional funds would have meant VA would be able to expand access to veterans who have not previously been able to use VA because of their distance from the medical centers. It would have better ensured VA could eliminate serious problems with waiting times that confront veterans in primary care clinics (including the new community-based outpatient clinics), orthopedic clinics, ophthalmology and audiology. It would have helped veterans obtain prosthetics, including such necessities as wheelchairs, oxygen tanks, hearing aids, and eyeglasses on a more timely basis. Additional funds would help Va face the emerging public health crisis of Hepatitis C by adding funds to overextended pharmaceutical budgets. It would have assisted VA in restoring some of the significant reductions that it has made in mental health services or help facilities meet the overwhelming need from long-term care aging WW II veterans are now facing. I also oppose this bill because it fails our nation's low-income families by reducing their access to affordable housing. The strong economy has boosted the cost of housing, placing this basic need further from the reach of struggling families and the elderly. Yet, the bill contains no new funding for new Section 8 housing vouchers. It also cuts funding for the construction and rehabilitation of public housing as well as cut assistance for the most needy, the homeless. This is unacceptable. In my home state of Illinois there are 67,182 project-based Section 8 apartments of which 41,437 have expiring contracts within the next five years. The cuts in this bill would cost my district alone $2 Million in housing funds and cause 130 fewer affordable units to be built. Stable housing is fundamental to allowing those with low incomes to improve their economic well-being. I oppose this bill because it doesn't do enough to provide working poor families, the elderly and the homeless with the housing assistance they so desperately need. Clearly this legislation lets down our veterans and some of the most needy in our society. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, many of us have worked hard to improve funding for veterans health care, the hallmark in this Congress. I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for their efforts in this regard. We began the budget process with a funding proposal from the administration that was totally inadequate. The $700 million add-on that the Republicans are now supporting sounds substantial, but it fails to meet the needs expressed by VA officials, both on and off the record. For this reason, I am going to reject this proposal for VA-HUD appropriations. It goes farther in meeting some of the challenges faced by the VA healthcare system, but not far enough. Unfortunately, the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules failed to protect the Edwards-Evans-Stabenow amendment under the rule. The Edwards amendment would have more than doubled the additional funds the appropriators added to the VA healthcare system. Many VA leaders have agreed that these funds would have offered welcome relief to an overwhelmed VA hospital system facing growing pains. These additional funds would have expanded access to veterans not previously able to use VA hospital care. The VA could have eliminated serious problems with waiting times that confront veterans in primary care clinics and other clinics. It would have helped veterans obtain much needed medical supplies, such as wheelchairs, oxygen tanks, hearing aids and eyeglasses, on a more timely basis. Additional funds would help VA face the emerging public health crisis of hepatitis C by adding funds to overextended pharmaceutical budgets. It would have assisted VA to restore some of the significant reductions that have been made in mental health services as well. It would have helped facilities meet the overwhelming need for long-term healthcare that our aging World War II veterans are now facing. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of our Nation's veterans by opposing this measure.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer-Sanford amendment which would provide a $350 million increase for health care for our Nation's veterans. This will bring the total funding increase for VA health care to $2.05 billion. This amount is almost exactly what was proposed in the additional and dissenting views offered to the Committee on the Budget by Democratic members of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), for inviting me to work with them on this important amendment. The amendment will allow the VA to make important enhancements in veterans' health care. It will provide funding to reimburse emergency care for veterans. This will ensure veterans are not reduced to second-class citizenry as other Americans benefit from a patients' bill of rights. It will allow critically needed funding to shore up long-term care and mental health programs, and it will assure adequate funds to provide screening and treatment for veterans who have the hepatitis C virus. Veterans who served during the Vietnam era are at a greater risk for having hepatitis C virus than any other Americans; yet I have had to request VA's Inspector General to investigate allegations that, because of underfunding, the VA has to ration the screening and care it provides to our Nation's heroes with this disease. I understand that this debate is about our priorities. I have encouraged and been encouraged by the efforts I have seen from Members on both sides of the aisle. It is high time we make our veterans a high national priority. A vote for the Roemer-Sanford amendment will allow us to do so. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) to add $730 million for veterans medical care in fiscal year 2000. This amendment, which the Republican members of the Committee on Rules failed to protect under the rule, assures America's veterans of the health care they need and at the level they deserve. To offset the costs of additional funding for veterans health care, the Edwards amendment would delay implementing for one year a proposed cut in the capital gains tax, a fraction of the nearly $800 billion tax cut being proposed and passed by this House. The Edwards amendment is about our national priorities, providing additional resources for our veterans medical care, for delaying a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans for 1 year. For me, the choice is very simple. I strongly support the Edwards amendment for the same reasons I voted against the rule on this bill. The Congress needs to provide a higher priority to veterans medical care than tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Congress must take the initiative to fund VA and allow it to rebuild its most excellent programs, those that serve the veterans who were injured on the battleground, those that have borne the battle. The Edwards amendment will allow VA to do this. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the measure that supports America's veterans. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) on this issue.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Chet Edwards to add $730 million for veterans' medical care in fiscal year 2000. This amendment, which the Republican members of the Committee on Rules failed to make in order under the rule assures America's veterans of the health care they need delivered at a level of service they deserve. To offset the cost of providing the additional funds for veterans' health care, the Edwards amendment would have delayed implementation of a proposed cut in the capital gains tax for one year, a fraction of nearly $800 billion tax cut passed by this House. I ask members of this body, can't Americans wealthy enough to benefit from this tax cut afford this small sacrifice to assure our veterans won't have to deal with delays and barriers in their access to high-quality health care? The Edwards amendment is about our national priorities. Providing additional resources for our veterans medical care programs or delaying a tax break for the wealthiest Americans for one year. For me this choice is simple. I am strongly supporting the Edwards amendment for the same reasons I voted against the rule on this bill. This Congress needs to provide a higher priority to veterans medical care than tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Earlier this year, the Committee on Veterans Affairs considered fiscal year 2000 funding for VA health care. Unfortunately, I was denied the opportunity to offer an amendment providing more funding than proposed by our Chairman. The Edwards amendment will provide approximately the same increase in discretionary funding for VA next fiscal year, $2.4 billion, as I had earlier sought to provide. There remains a critical need for this significant increase in funding. Our veterans know this. Their service organizations have steadfastly supported efforts to add funds to the VA health care budget. The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, and Paralyzed Veterans of America sent letters to the Rules Committee in support of the Edwards amendment being made in order. A coalition of veterans' groups had earlier supported the increased funding level I planned to propose to the VA Committee. The last few years in VA health care system have been pivotal ones. VA has reformed its delivery system, bringing its acute care system into line with modern health care practice. But clinicians and patients alike have begun to cite waiting times and other problems with access to care that have been affected by this sea of change. I, and other Democratic Members met with members of the Administration to discuss this vital need. These meetings ultimately contributed to Democrats' success in securing a revised plan offered by Vice President Gore to add a billion dollars to the Presdient's FY 2000 proposal for VA health care and construction. I believe the President's revised budget proposal was critical to bringing awareness of the emerging crisis confronting the veterans' health care to Congress and I thank them for their willingness to hear the concerns of Members and take appropriate action. There is still a case to be made for increasing the VA health care budget. Unfortunately just prior to the August District Work Period, this House voted for a rule that failed to protect the Edwards amendment being in order. This party-line vote is ``deja vu all over again'' in helping us to help America's veterans. I remain incredulous that this Congress would knowingly choose a brief delay in the capital gains tax cut over adding funding that will better assure high-quality veterans' programs and I certainly understand why Republicans have thus far taken steps to avoid this debate. VA needs this money. Members are aware that VA's progress in implementing some positive and necessary changes has come at a price. Shifting health care practice styles are eroding some of the VA's best programs--its long-term care programs, it rehabilitative and extended care for seriously disabled veterans, and its mental health care treatment for veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or substance abuse issues. We are now at a point where we must restore certain programs to their past distinction. Congress must take the initiative to fund VA and allow it to re-build its most excellent programs--those that serve the veterans who were injured physically or psychically on the battleground--those that have borne the battle. The Edwards amendment will allow VA to do this. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a measure that supports America's veterans. Vote for the Edwards amendment. [In billions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on H.R. 2684. Last night, I joined Chet Edwards, Debbie Stabenow, and David Obey in asking our Rules Committee to support a waiver to allow Mr. Edwards' amendment to add $730 million for veterans' medical care in fiscal year 2000 to be considered by this House. Had the amendment been made in order, we could have been assured it would be debated and voted on by the full House. To offset the cost of providing the additional funds for veterans' health care, the Edwards amendment would have delayed implementation of a proposed cut in the capital gains tax, a part of the nearly $800 billion tax cut passed by the House. The Edwards amendment was considered earlier by the House Appropriations Committee and was defeated by a one-vote margin on a 26-25 straight party-line vote. Earlier this year, the Committee on Veterans Affairs had a contentious debate on next year's funding for VA health care. At that time, I was denied the opportunity to offer an amendment providing more funding than proposed by our Chairman. The Edwards Amendment would have provided approximately the same increase in discretionary funding for VA next fiscal year, $2.4 billion, as I had earlier sought to provide. Mr. Speaker, veterans' service organizations have steadfastly supported efforts to add funds to the VA health care budget. The American Legion, Disabled Veterans of America, and Paralyzed Veterans of America sent letters to the Rules Committee in support of the Edwards amendment being made in order. A coalition of veterans' groups had earlier supported the increased funding level I planned to propose to the VA Committee. The last few years in VA health care system have been pivotal. VA has reformed its delivery system, bringing its acute care system into line with modern health care practices. But clinicians and patients alike have begun to cite waiting times and other problems with access to care that have been affected by this sea change. Recognizing the urgent need for funding, I, and other Democratic Members, have met repeatedly with members of the Administration. Our meetings ultimately succeeded in securing a revised budget request offered by Vice-President Gore to add a billion dollars to next year's appropriation for VA health care and construction. Our efforts with the Republicans in this body, however, have not been as successful. This latest vote against making the Edwards amendment in order is ``deja vu all over again''. We only asked the Republican majority to give us a chance for an honest debate on where veterans fit into our Nation's priorities. The priority of Congressional Republicans is obviously cutting capital gains taxes and not providing added funding for veterans programs. I can understand why Republicans want to avoid an open debate on funding for veterans programs vs. capital gains tax breaks. Unfortunately there will be real consequences for this partisanship. VA needs this money, and I am convinced that given the opportunity the House would pass the Edwards amendment. Members are aware that VA's progress in implementing some positive and necessary changes has come at a price. Shifting health care practice styles are eroding some of the VA's best programs--its long-term care programs, its rehabilitative and extended care for seriously disabled veterans, and its mental health care treatment for veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or substance abuse issues. We are now at a point where we must restore certain programs to their past distinction. Congress must take the initiative to fund VA and allow it to re-build its most excellent programs--those that serve the veterans who were injured physically or psychically on the battleground--those that have borne the battle. The Edwards amendment would have allowed VA to do this. I regret the Republican majority has, once again, seen fit to thwart an honest debate on National priorities.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today's vote on the resolution of disapproval is really a vote on if we are truly dedicated to the hard work of getting a full accounting of the missing in action from the Vietnam War. As the Veterans of Foreign Wars has argued, passing this resolution of disapproval will only hurt our efforts at a time that they are receiving the access and cooperation we need from the Vietnamese to determine the fate of our POW/MIAs. There is no more authoritative voice on this issue than our former colleague and now Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, who supports the waiver. As a prisoner of war who underwent years of imprisonment in the notorious Hanoi Hilton, he should have every right to be skeptical and harbor bitterness against the Vietnamese. Yet he believes the best course of action is to develop better relations between our countries. We have achieved progress on the POW/MIA issue because of our evolving relationship with the Vietnamese, not despite it. Without access to the jungles and rice paddies, to the archival information and documents, and to the witnesses of these tragic incidents, we cannot give the families of the missing the answers they deserve. Our Nation is making progress in providing these answers. Much of this is due to the Joint Task Force-Full Accounting, our military presence in Vietnam who are looking into missing issues. I have visited these young men and women and they are among the finest and bravest and most gung ho soldiers I have ever met. Every day from the searches of battle sites in treacherous jungles or the excavation of crash sites on precarious mountain summits, they put themselves in harm's way to perform a mission they truly believe in. It is moving to see these men and women in action, some of whom were not even born when our missing served, perform a mission that they see as a sacred duty. They tell me time and time again one thing: ``Allow us to remain here so we can do our job.'' This resolution before us today puts that at risk. I urge my colleagues to please vote against this resolution.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, again, Congress is faced with a tax proposal that fails to address the needs of working Americans. Instead, my Republican colleagues have crafted legislation that reflects only the concerns of corporate ``Fat Cats'' and wealthy special interests. Mr. Speaker, tax breaks for the richest 10% of Americans does little to reaffirm working men and women's faith in their Government. After years of belt-tightening and fiscal discipline, we have been given a rare opportunity to lessen the burden on families struggling to make ends meet while preserving Social Security and Medicare. Yet today, we are debating an irresponsible, politically motivated, tax cut that does little for average citizens. Under the guise of returning government dollars to the pockets of Taxpayers, this proposal is a death knell for programs that reflect the values and priorities of working Americans--Education, the environment, proper care for our seniors and veterans. Today, I will vote for the Democratic substitute that pays down the national debt, shores up our Social Security and Medicare programs and provides tax breaks for working families. Our bill will sustain the growing economy and protect programs that help the majority of Americans, not just a wealthy few.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). The intent of this amendment is clear, to give our veterans in the Persian Gulf War first priority in seeking claims against Iraqi assets frozen by our Government during the war. This amendment has the strong support of veterans groups, including Gulf War veterans. They know that while we can never make up the losses that were incurred in the Gulf War, veterans and their families should have the assurances that we will continue to seek every chance to collect damages against those injuries that they have suffered from.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2280, as amended. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his leadership on this important piece of legislation and for his continuing efforts on behalf of this country's veterans. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee, for their hard work in crafting this important legislation. The Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 1999 is an excellent bill, providing improvements to a number of veterans benefit programs. I am very pleased some of the provisions in this bill are based on measures that I authored and introduced. H.R. 2280 is yet another example of our ability to work together in a bipartisan fashion to improve the lives of America's veterans and their families. It deserves the support of every member of this body. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2280, as amended. I thank the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Stump, for his leadership on this important legislation and for his continuing efforts on behalf of the Nation's veterans. I also thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Quinn, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, and the gentleman from California Mr. Filner, the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee, for their hard work in crafting this important legislation. H.R. 2880, the Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 1999, provides improvements to a number of veterans benefit programs. In addition, it supports the timely construction of the World War II Memorial which will recognize the contributions made by all Americans to the war effort. This measure is deserving of the support of every member of this body. I am pleased several of the provisions in this bill are based on measures I authored and introduced. Section 104 of H.R. 2280 is taken from H.R. 708. It will restore eligibility for CHAMP-VA medical care, education benefits and home loan assistance to remarried surviving spouses who lost eligibility for these benefits upon remarriage and whose subsequent marriage has ended. During the 105th Congress, legislation was enacted allowing for reinstatement of eligibility for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) cash benefits after termination of the remarriage. The present measure completes the restoration of eligibility for all VA benefits to surviving spouses if the subsequent marriage is ended. I am very pleased that section 211 of H.R. 2280 includes the provisions of my bill, H.R. 1476, the National Cemetery Act of 1999. This section would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish four new national cemeteries, each of which would be established in an area of the country, determined by the Secretary, to be most in need of cemetery space to serve veterans and their families. Although VA statistics show that the demand for burial benefits will increase sharply in the near future, with interments increasing 42% from 1995 to 2010, the Administration's FY 2000 VA budget proposal did not include funding for additional national cemeteries. Unless new cemeteries are established soon, however, VA will not be able to meet the need for burial services for veterans in several metropolitan areas of the country. In response to this situation, I introduced H.R. 1476. Section 301 includes the provisions of my bill, H.R. 1603, the Selected Reserve Housing Loan Fairness Act of 1999. This section would provide for permanent eligibility for veterans' housing loans for members of the Selected Reserve who complete six years of service. Last year, Public Law 105-368 extended Guard and Reserve eligibility for VA housing loans, which was to expire this year, through fiscal year 2003. The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States pointed out, however, that this benefit cannot be used as a recruiting incentive because recruits must serve in the Selected Reserve for 6 years before they may participate in the VA housing loan program. Under current law, a recruit enlisting today will not be eligible for a VA loan before the authority for the loan expires. H.R. 1603, by making the home loan eligibility permanent, will give the Selected Reserve the incentive they need to recruit ``the best and the brightest.'' Section 502 of H.R. 2280 is drawn from H.R. 1214 which I introduced to assure that the Veterans Benefits Administration's (VBA) internal quality assurance activities meet the recognized appropriate governmental standards for independence and internal control. This measure requires VBA to have a quality assurance program which comports with generally accepted government standards for performance audits. Because of the fundamental importance of accurate and effective claims processing and adjudication by VA regional offices, and the need for effective oversight of regional office claims processing and adjudication by the Veterans' Benefits Administration (VBA), in July of 1997, I requested the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to review the quality assurance policies and practices of the VBA. On March 1, 1999, GAO issued its report which determined that further improvement is needed in claims-processing accuracy. In particular, GAO determined that VBA's quality assurance activities do not meet the standards for independence and internal control. While VBA has made some improvements by developing an accuracy measurement which focuses on VA's core benefit work--rating claims for benefits--further improvements are needed in claims processing. In fiscal year 2000, the VA will pay over $22 billion in monetary benefits to veterans. Without a mandated program of quality assurance, which meets generally accepted governmental auditing standards for program performance audits, impartial and independent oversight of the quality of claims adjudication decisions will not be assured. With the establishment of independent oversight of the quality of claims adjudication decisions, veterans can have more confidence in the decisions made by VA and the number of claims which are remanded because of the poor quality of claims adjudication will be reduced. With better initial decisions and fewer remands for re-adjudication, veterans will receive a quicker and a more accurate response. More claims will be adjudicated correctly the first time. This will not occur overnight, but without an independent oversight of the quality of claims adjudication decisions it may never exist. H.R. 2280 is yet another example of our ability to work together in a bipartisan fashion to improve the lives of our Nation's veterans and their families. I strongly support all provisions of H.R. 2280 and urge my colleagues to approve this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the committee, in strong support of this resolution that salutes the Veterans of Foreign Wars on the occasion of their centennial anniversary. Throughout its century of existence, the VFW has provided 100 years of extraordinary service to our veterans and their families. From the Buddy Poppy program to Operation Uplink, the VFW, through its century-long history, has provided support and assistance to men and women who have proudly worn the uniform of the United States. In recognition of these and countless other good works, the two million members of the VFW are the epitome of the citizen-soldier upon whom this Nation has and continues to rely. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 34 and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure. I am pleased to join with the Chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from Arizona, in strong support of H.J. Res. 34, a resolution congratulating and commending the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States on the occasion of their centennial anniversary. Throughout its century of existence, the VFW has provided 100 years of extraordinary service to veterans and their families. From the Buddy Poppy program, established in 1922 to raise funds for national veterans' service programs and to provide relief for local veterans and their families--to Operational Uplink, established just three years ago to enable hospitalized veterans and servicemembers stationed around the globe to ``phone home''--the VFW, throughout its century-long history, has provided support and assistance to the men and women who have proudly worn the uniform of the United States. The VFW should also be commended for the work its members have done in their communities across the country. The VFW Community Service Program, the Voice of Democracy essay competition, the VFW Safety Program, and VFW-sponsored youth activities have all contributed to the strength and stability of our great country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1568, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999. As a long-time supporter of veterans' small business efforts and veterans' employment programs, I commend Congressman Jim Talent, Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, and Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, the Committee's Ranking Democrat, for bringing this important legislation before the House. In developing this legislation, Jim listened to hard-working veterans business owners and veterans' advocates who strongly encouraged creation of a National Veterans Business Development Corporation. Additionally, H.R. 1568 provides a clear mandate for the Small Business Administration to not just support, but champion, veteran entrepreneurs to gain access to business opportunities. Small businesses are the engines that drive job creation in America. Most net job growth in the last 10 to 15 years in the United States has resulted from small businesses. Not only does America need small business, it needs the networking skills, the inventiveness, the can-do attitude of veterans that have been gained during their military service. Our country has an investment in the success of veteran- entreprenuers--including many disabled veterans--and this legislation will help protect our investment. Veterans who establish their own businesses are a double asset to America. They contribute their service-honed skills to the development of our economy, and they are a key link in the expansion of employment opportunities for others. It is simply good sense to give them meaningful support in today's global economy. After serving this nation in uniform, our ``Private Ryans'' have come home to contribute to America's economic success--not only after World War II, but after every subsequent conflict. Using skills gained during their military service, veterans have become successful entrepreneurs, continuing to contribute to our Nation. We can never repay these men and women for their sacrifices, but we can certainly support their efforts to become successful enterpreneurs--success which will benefit all Americans. H.R. 1568 is an excellent bill, and I again thank Chairman Jim Talent and Congresswoman Velazquez, the Ranking Democratic Member of the Small Business Committee, for their strong support for America's veterans.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce ``Protection for Temporaries in the Workplace,'' legislation designed to address the lack of equity and economic security so prevalent among today's temporary workforce. Our strong economy has yielded more jobs for Americans than at any other time in recent history. Indeed, joblessness is now far below what many economists thought could be sustained in a modern economy. Yet, the changes in the labor market over the past generation has raised concerns with job security, workplace protection and employee benefits. Once secure, a growing sector of today's workforce no longer has the luxury of working for the same employer until retirement. Today, many full-time permanent jobs are being replaced by temporary positions as ``flexibility'' becomes a driving force sustaining our economic expansion. According to the National Association of Temporary Staffing Services, over 10 percent of today's workforce is temporary. These temporary jobs rarely offer adequate health or pension benefits. Additionally, many employees are misclassified as ``temporary'' when they are in fact, full-time employees. Many employment law protections are antiquated and often leave temporary workers no recourse against abusive employer practices. This is not only bad for the employees, but also bad for employers who do the ``right thing'' by taking responsibility for their workers by putting them at a competitive disadvantage with companies who skirt the law. The temporary work industry is flourishing in large part because employers are turning to these work arrangements to cut costs and raise revenues because they can exclude employees from benefit plans and deny them protection under labor laws. This is creating a new working underclass and lowering our national living standard. Although temporary work provides flexibility and independence for some Americans, others resort to ``temping'' only because they have not been able to secure permanent, full-time jobs. According to a report by Dr. Helene Jorgensen of the 2030 Center, temporary employees lack many of the benefits and protections that are standard with permanent employment. According to the report, only 5 percent of temporary workers age 25-34 have health insurance through their employer, whereas 50.5 percent of the general population is covered. In addition, these temporary employees earn on average 16.5 percent less than they would have earned working in a regular job. More alarming are the instances in which companies regularly hire ``temporary'' employees for extended periods and continually exclude them from any benefit plans that they offer their ``permanent'' employees. In many cases, temporaries are performing the same work alongside a ``permanent'' employee, yet are taking home lower pay and have no access to health, vacation, or pension benefits. Employers regularly use this practice of hiring ``Permatemps'' to keep the costs of their benefit plans at a minimum. My legislative package will remedy these situations, and prohibit employers from evading their legal and moral responsibilities to their employees, without placing a mandate on America's businesses. Businesses are not required to provide benefits for temporary employees, but are prohibited from using underhanded tactics to exclude full-time employees who would be otherwise eligible to participate in a benefit plan. The ERISA Clarification Act, amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to prevent employers from misdesignating employees as ``temporary'', who are otherwise eligible for health, pension and other employee benefits. Specifically, the bill defines ``Year of Service'' in ERISA to include all service for the employer as an employee under the common law, regardless of how or where the worker is paid--through an employment agency, payroll agency, temporary help agency or staffing firm. The Equity for Temporary Workers Act, provides additional protection in the workplace for temporary employees by prohibiting discrimination in benefit plans that are not governed by ERISA, requiring temporary employees to receive equal pay for equal work and amending OSHA to ensure that employers are responsible for the health and safety of all employees at the worksite--not just those who are ``permanent.''

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment. It contains my amendment to waive the statutory time limit and authorize the President to present the Congressional Medal of Honor to Alfred Rascon for his brave and heroic actions during the Vietnam War. He truly embodies the spirit and sacrifices made by those gallant individuals who have earned our Nation's highest military honor. In 1966, he was a paramedic and risked his life many times to save the lives of his colleagues. When his unit came under intense enemy attack, Mr. Rascon on three separate occasions ran through enemy fire to jump on soldiers to protect them from exploding grenades or incoming rifle and machine gun fire. On one occasion, he suffered grenade shrapnel and wounds while protecting another solder he was caring for. On two other occasions, he dove on soldiers to shield them from several incoming exploding grenades, observing the full blast himself each time. Regardless of these wounds and an additional wound to his face from an exploding grenade, he retrieved the point squad's abandoned machine gun and its ammunition while drawing heavy fire. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Chairman's En Bloc amendment. The En Bloc package contains my amendment to waive the statutory time limit and authorize the President to present the Congressional Medal of Honor to Alfred Rascon for his heroic and brave actions during the Vietnam War. His case embodies the spirit and sacrifice made by those gallant individuals who have earned our nation's highest military honor. On 16 March 1966, Sp4 Alfred Rascon, distinguished himself by a series of extraordinarily courageous acts while assigned as a medic to the Reconnaissance Platoon, Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion (Airborne), 503d Infantry, 173d Airborne Brigade. While moving to reinforce a sister unit under intense enemy attack, the Reconnaissance Platoon came under heavy fire from a numerically superior enemy force. The intense fire severely wounded several soldiers and repulsed repeated attempts by fellow soldiers to rescue their fallen comrades. Ignoring this and directions to stay behind shelter, Mr. Rascon repeatedly tried to crawl forward to assist the wounded soldiers but was driven back each time by the withering enemy fire. Despite the risks to his own safety and realizing that the point machine-gunner was severely wounded and still under direct enemy fire, he dashed through gunfire and exploding grenades to reach his comrade. To protect him from wounds, Mr. Rascon intentionally placed his body between the soldier and the enemy machine guns and in doing so sustained numerous shrapnel injuries and a serious hip wound from an enemy bullet. Despite his wounds, he dragged him from the fire-raked trail and then crawled back through the area of heaviest fire with ammunition for a machine gunner, allowing the soldier to resume life protecting covering fire for the beleaguered squad. As Mr. Rascon crawled through the murderous fire to retrieve an abandoned machine gun and ammunition, a grenade exploded directly in front of him, severely wounding him in the face and torso. Although weakened by loss of blood and his painful wounds, he recovered the machine gun and ammunition for another soldier who was then able to provide badly needed suppressive fire for the pinned- downed unit. As Mr. Rascon went forward to aid a badly wounded grenadier, he saw grenades fall near the stricken soldier. With complete disregard for his own life, he dove on the wounded man and covered him with his body, absorbing the full force of the grenade explosion but saving the soldier's life. Although he sustained additional fragmentation wounds to his face, back and legs, Mr. Rascon continued to treat the wounded. Seeing grenades land near the wounded point squad leader, and without regard for the consequences, he again rose to his feet and dove on the wounded man, again absorbing the blast of the grenades with his own body and suffering additional multiple fragmentation wounds. After treating the wounded sergeant, Mr. Rascon remained on the battlefield, providing medical aid to the wounded and inspiring his fellow soldiers to continue the battle. After the enemy broke contact, he treated and directed the evacuation of the wounded, and only then allowed himself to be treated. While making his way to the evacuation zone, Mr. Rascon collapsed from the result of his wounds and blood loss, and was carried from the battlefield. Because of the selflessness and bravery he demonstrated that day, Mr. Rascon's unit members submitted a recommendation for him to receive the Medal of Honor. Unfortunately, the written recommendation never made it up the chain of command. While we can't arase the mistake that deprived him of this award over thirty years ago, we can today finally do justice to Mr. Rascon. There are many people to thank for their work to recognize Alfred Rascon's extraordinary heroism. Gil Coronado, Director of the Selective Service System, brought this case to my attention over six years ago and has been a consistent champion of this cause. Ken Smith, Colonel, US Army (Ret.), President of the Society of the 173rd Airborne Brigade, has been a steadfast supporter and brought his years of military experience as well as his dogged determination to the table. He and the Society were critical to the success of this effort. Gordon Sumner, COL, USA Ret., the Chairman of the DC Chapter of the 82nd Airborne Division, also assisted at critical times and deserves credit. Kelli R. Willard West, former legislative director of the Vietnam Veterans of America, helped bring the voice of Vietnam Veterans to this endeavor. Her hard work and steadfast support made an impact on this effort. John Fales, known as Sgt. Shaft to Washington Times readers, let the public know of Mr. Rascon's bravery and the efforts to properly honor him. Chairman Buyer and Ranking Member Neil Abercrombie should be commended for their assistance on bringing this amendment to the floor. I would also like to thank the staff of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, in particular Mike Higgins, for their efforts over the many years of work it took to bring this case to its logical conclusion. I also thank my colleagues who signed the numerous letters and joined in my efforts to honor Mr. Rascon. Specifically, Representatives Roscoe Bartlett and Luis Gutierrez should be noted for their support as well as Members of Congress who served in the 173rd, including Representatives Duncan Hunter, Mike Thompson and Charlie Norwood. My colleagues on the Senate side, Senators Spencer Abraham and Strom Thurmond must also be commended. Their efforts led to this amendment being included in the Senate's version of the FY2000 DOD Authorization Act. Stuart Anderson of Senator Abraham's staff should be particularly thanked for his efforts. Above all, members of Mr. Rascon's unit, the 1-503d Reconnaissance Platoon, must be recognized. Without their dogged efforts and those of Jacob R. Cook, SFC, USA Ret., Willie Williams, SFC, USA Ret., James K. Akuna (Deceased), SFC, USA Ret., Forrest Powers, SFC, USA Ret., Elmer R. Compton, SGT, SP4 John Kirk, Neil Haffey, PFC and Larry Gibson, PFC (MSG, USANG) this oversight never would have been brought to the attention of Congress and the public. Other members up and down the chain of command of the 173rd should be thanked as well, including Paul F. Smith, MG, USA Ret., John Tyler, COL, USA Ret., Bill Vose, CPT, USA Ret., Frank Vavrin, LTC, (Chaplain), USA Ret., Tom Marrinan, SFC, USA Ret., Jess Castanon, SGT (Deceased), Bob Berruti, SGT, Bob McCarthy, SGT, Ray Penzon, SGT, and Dan Ojeda. A special thanks should go to Roy Lombardo, LTC, USA Ret., who initially resubmitted the MOH packet to the Department of Defense. Mr. Lombardo, a Captain in the 173rd's 2nd Battalion during 1966, took this action when he was made aware, by Mr. Rascon's platoon members during the 173d's 1990 25th reunion, that the nomination never went forward. Other individuals and organizations who deserve credit and thanks include: Bishop Joseph Madera, Brig. Gen. Michael F. Aguilar, USMC, Suzanna Valdez, the National Council of La Raze, Daniel B. Gibson, Bill Dunker, the Heroes and Heritage Foundation, Raul Yzaguirre, Ken Steadman, Richard Boylan, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Robert Stacy. It is my true belief that we do not live up to our nation's sacred commitment to our veterans if we do not properly honor the sacrifices made by those who went above and beyond the call of duty. Again, I urge my colleagues to support the Chairman's En Bloc amendment and this important effort to honor Alfred Rascon, a true American hero.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, the bill in front of us takes important steps to address the national security resources that are being seriously neglected, our Nation's arsenals. Our arsenals are an insurance policy that allow us to mobilize for war, produce special weapons on a moment's notice, as well as bringing technical improvements to current future weapons systems. These are unique capabilities that cannot be replaced. Unfortunately, the Pentagon's policy of privatization at any cost has brought the arsenals to the breaking point. The loss of workload associated with this policy is draining them of skilled labor. Workers are either getting pink slips or leaving on their own because of an uncertain future. Less workload also means rising overhead costs that make the arsenals less competitive. This has led to a downward spiral, actively promoted by both DOD and the weapons contractors. However, we can bring work to these facilities and preserve their vital capabilities. This bill does that in two significant ways. One, it extends the pilot program that allows the arsenals to sell manufactured articles and services without regard for their availability from commercial services. This provision, which only applies to defense contracts, will help lower high overhead rates due to low utilization. Second, the bill contains important report language that gives the arsenals challenge contracting authority for components of the 155mm lightweight Howitzer. This gives the arsenals, who are unsurpassed in Howitzer technology, a chance to assist this important but troubled program, which is 2 years behind the date at this point. While we still need to reverse DOD's policy of privatization at any cost, these provisions are an important first step in giving our arsenals the workload they need. I hope my colleagues will support this bill and its important measures to assist our arsenals.