Lane Evans

Mr. EVANS

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

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his leadership on this legislation before us today. I am optimistic that the House will enact legislation to increase the Montgomery GI Bill basic monthly benefit and make other improvements to this important veterans' readjustment program. I am very pleased that the person who provided the inspiration for this program, Sonny Montgomery, has joined us today. We appreciate his attendance. We are very pleased that he came up with the idea of the new GI Bill, and we will work with him in the future. I also want to recognize the other gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) for his determined advocacy for veterans. He is a leader on veterans' educational benefits and health care for our retirees. On behalf of our veterans, I want to thank him for his leadership on these and many other important issues. I also welcome the support of the administration for needed benefit increases in the Montgomery GI Bill. The administration has proposed to increase the basic monthly benefit to $670 per month effective October 1 of this year. That would provide a very significant 25 percent increase in the monthly benefit. I think every member of our committee believes that this increase is needed, long overdue, and a step in the right direction. The administration's support for benefit increases in the GI Bill is very welcome, and I look forward to working with them in the future. Last year, the gentleman from Arizona and I introduced separate measures to improve the Montgomery GI Bill. The legislation I authored with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), H.R. 1071, is cosponsored by 143 Members of our House of Representatives. This includes a large representation of the Members, and it is a great honor to support the gentleman from Arizona's leadership on this issue. H.R. 1071 would provide the meaningful increase in educational benefits I believe our Nation should provide to the women and men who serve our country in the Armed Forces by restoring the GI Bill's purchasing power. Mr. Speaker, we know H.R. 4268 is only the first step toward improving the Montgomery GI Bill program in a meaningful way. This legislation does comply with pay-go. Congress can enact it. It will provide real benefit increases for veterans and their dependents. That is why I hope the House will approve this unanimously today. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Chairman Stump for his leadership on the legislation before us today. I am optimistic that Congress will enact legislation to increase the Montgomery GI Bill basic monthly benefit and make other improvements to his important veterans' readjustment program. I also want to recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Ronnie Shows, for his determined advocacy for veterans. He is a leader on veterans' educational benefits and health care for our military retirees. On behalf of our veterans, I thank him for his leadership on these and so many other important issues. Mr. Speaker, I also welcome support from the Administration for needed benefit increases in the Montgomery GI Bill. The Administration has proposed to increase the basic monthly benefit to $670 per month effective October 1st this year. This would provide a very significant 25% increase in the monthly benefit. I believe every Member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs believes this increase is needed, long overdue, and represents a step in the right direction. I look forward to working with the Administration in the future as we move forward with the subsequent steps necessary to restore the original purchasing power to the GI Bill. Last year, Chairman Stump and I introduced separate measures to improve the Montgomery GI bill. The legislation which I authored with Congressman Dingell, H.R. 1071, is cosponsored by 143 members of the House. H.R. 1071 provides the meaningful increase in educational benefits I believe our nation should provide the women and men who serve our country in the Armed Forces. Historically, the MGIB program has been the most important recruiting incentive for the armed services. But the value of these benefits has failed to keep up with the spiraling costs of higher education. Enhancements to rectify this problem with the MGIB are long overdue. I strongly agree with the report of the Congressional Commission on Service members and Veterans Transition Assistance, which concluded ``. . . an opportunity to obtain the best education for which they qualify is the most valuable benefit our Nation can offer the men and women whose military service preserves our liberty.'' I applaud the Commission's bold, new plan for the MGIB. This proposal, however, must be further strengthened and enhanced if the MGIB is to fulfill its purposes as a meaningful readjustment benefit and as an effective recruitment incentive for our Armed Forces. Since implementation of the Montgomery GI Bill on July 1, 1985, there have been major changes in the economic and sociological landscapes that make revisions in the structure and benefit level of this program imperative. Of immediate concern is the ineffectiveness of the MGIB as a readjustment program for service members making the transition from a military to a civilian workforce. Although costs of education have soared, nearly doubling since 1980, GI Bill benefits have not kept pace. In fact, during the 1995-96 school year, the basic benefit paid under the MGIB offsets only a paltry 36 percent of average total education costs, and the disappointingly low usage rate of 51% for 1998 confirms the inadequacy of the current program's benefit levels. Under current law, young men and women who serve in our Armed Forces have the option of enrolling in the MGIB when they enter the military. This includes their agreement to a $100 per month pay reduction during the first 12 months of service, for a total contribution of $1200. Once their initial term of service has been honorably served, a veteran is eligible to receive the basic educational benefit of $536 each month he or she is enrolled in full-time college study. The benefit continues for up to 36 months. Assuming he or she is enrolled for a typical nine- month academic year, the veteran's total benefit for that year is $4,824. With this modest amount he or she is expected to pay for tuition, fees, room and board. The average annual cost of tuition and basic expenses at a four-year public college is $8,774 for commuter students and $10,909 for students who live on campus. Not surprisingly, the same annual costs for four- year private colleges are even higher: $20,500 for commuter students and $23,651 for residents. the disparity between these ever-increasing costs and a veteran's ability to pay for them is clear. This disparity recently prompted key military and veteran organizations to join together with organizations representing colleges to form the ``Partnership for Veterans' Education.'' The coalition launched an energetic campaign calling for Congress to at least go as far as increasing the basic benefit under the MGIB to $975 per month, enough to cover the $8,774 average annual cost of attending a four-year public college as a commuter student. As I've stated already, H.R. 4268 will not meet these overwhelming education costs standing on its own. It is an important step in the right direction, though, as Congress seeks to find ways to fully restore the GI Bill's purchasing power to what was originally intended. As introduced, section two of H.R. 4268 would increase the basic benefit under the GI Bill from $536 to $600 per month on October 1, 2000 and to $720 per month on October 1, 2002, for full-time students, with proportionate increases for part-time students. Section three would furnish individuals still on active duty who either turned down a previous opportunity to convert to the MGIB or had a zero balance in their Vietnam era Veterans' Education Assistance Program (VEAP) account, the option to pay $2,700 to convert to MGIB eligibility. Section four would increase survivors' and dependents' educational assistance benefits for full-time students from $485 to $600 per month effective October 1, 2000, and $720 per month effective October 1, 2002, with proportionate increases from part-time students. An annual cost of living adjustment is also authorized. Section five would permit the award of Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance payments to be retroactive to the date of VA's adjudication of a service-connected death or a 100% disability rating. Section six would solve a problem that faces a small number of students whose schools have different schedules. It would allow for monthly educational assistance benefits to be paid between term, quarter, or semester intervals of up to 8 weeks in duration. Section seven would allow the use of Montgomery GI Bill benefits to pay for fee associated with a veteran's civilian occupational licensing or certification examination. To offset the costs of H.R. 4268, section eight of the bill as introduced, would extend temporary authorities to 2008 that would otherwise expire on September 30, 2002. These include a VA enhanced loan asset authority guaranteeing the payment of principal and interest on VA-issued certificates or other securities; VA home loan fees of three-quarters of 1 percent of the total loan amount, procedures applicable to liquidation sales on defaulted home loans guaranteed by VA; VA/Department of Health and Human Services income verification authority in which VA verifies the eligibility of, or applicants for, VA needs-based benefits and VA means-tested medical care by gaining access to income records of the Department of Health and Human Services/Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service; and limitation on VA pension on veterans without dependents receiving Medicaid-covered nursing home care. In addition, section nine of the bill would codify recurring provisions in annual VA appropriations acts, and section ten would reinstate the requirements that the Secretary provide periodic reports. Specifically, these concern reports on equitable relief granted by the Secretary to an individual beneficiary (expires December 31, 2004); work and activities of the Department; programs and activities examined by the Advisory Committees on Former Prisoners of War and Women Veterans (expires after biennial reports submitted in 2003); operation of the Montgomery GI Bill educational assistance program (expires December 31, 2004); and the activities of the Secretary's special medical advisory group (expires December 31, 2004). In addition, section ten requires the Secretary to include with any report an estimate of the cost of preparing the report. The current structure of the MGIB served the veterans of the second half of the 20th century very well. However, the MGIB must now be re- examined in the context of a January, 1999 report by he Departments of Commerce, Labor, and Education, the Small Business Administration, and the National Institute for Literacy. This report, entitled ``21st Century Skills for 21st Century Jobs,'' has important implications for veterans entering the civilian workforce. Emphasizing the importance to the nation of investing in education and training, the report concluded changes in the economy and workplace are requiring greater levels of skill and education than ever before. It predicted eight of the ten fastest growing jobs in the next decade will require college education or moderate to long-term training, and jobs requiring a bachelor's degree will increase by 25%. The report also noted workers with more education enjoy greater benefits, experience less unemployment and, if dislocated, re-enter the labor force far more quickly than individuals with less education. It also reports that, on average, college graduates earn 77% more than individuals with only a high school diploma. If America's veterans are to successfully compete in the challenging 21st century workforce, they simply have to have the ability to obtain the education and training critical to their success. As noted by the Transition Commission, ``. . . education will be the key to employment in the information age.'' According to the 1997 Department of Defense report entitled ``Population Representation in the Military Services,'' 20% of the new enlisted recruits for that year were African American, 10% were Hispanic, 6% were other minorities, including Native Americans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders, and 18% were women. The report further notes that, although members of the military come from backgrounds somewhat lower in socioeconomic status than the U.S. average, these young men and women have higher levels of education, measured aptitudes, and reading skills than their civilian counterparts. These young people, most of whom do not enter military service with financial or socioeconomic advantages, have enormous potential, and it is in the best interests of the nation they be given every opportunity to achieve their highest potential. Access to education is the key to achieving that potential. It is also important to remember that, through the sacrifices required of them through their military service, this group of young Americans--more than any other--earns the benefits provided for them by a grateful nation. Of equal concern to me as a member of the Armed Services Committee is the MGIB program's failure to fulfill its purpose as a recruitment incentive for the Armed Forces. Findings of the 1998 Youth Attitude Tracking Study (YATS)--confirm that recruiters are faced with serious challenges, and these challenges are likely to continue. This survey of young men and women, conducted annually by the Department of Defense, provides information on the propensity, attitudes and motivations of young people toward military service. The latest YATS shows the propensity to enlist among young males has fallen from 34% in 1991 to 26% in 1998, in spite of a generally favorable view of the military. In addition to a thriving civilian economy, which inevitably results in recruiting challenges, the percentage of American youth going to college is increasing and the young people most likely to go to college express little interest in joining our Armed Forces. Interestingly, these same youth note that if they were to serve in the military, their primary reason for enlisting would be to earn educational assistance benefits. The study concluded the propensity to enlist is substantially below pre-drawdown levels and, as a result, the services will probably not succeed in recruiting the number of young, high-quality men and women they need in FY 1999. High-quality youth are defined as those who have a high school diploma and who have at least average scores on tests measuring mathematical and verbal skills. The Department of Defense tells us about 80% of these recruits will complete their first three years of active duty while only 50% of recruits with a GED will complete their enlistment. GAO notes that it costs at least $35,000 to replace a recruit who leaves the service prematurely. The report states these findings underscore the need for education benefits that will attract college-bound youth who need money for school, a segment of American young people we conclude are not opting to take advantage of the many other sources of federal education assistance. The current structure and benefit level of the MGIB must be significantly amended if these high quality young men and women are to be attracted to service in our Armed Forces. The Army has been missing its enlistment goals several times now. Additionally, for the first time since 1979, the Air Force may be missing its targets too. Although the Navy and Marine Corps are currently meeting their enlistment goals, they will likely miss them in the future unless we take quick and effective action. The CINC, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Admiral Paul Reason, recently reported to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the last three carrier battle groups have deployed with forces below the required manning level. Specifically, the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt battle group deployed last year with 9% of its positions unfilled. These are strong indications of a coming readiness crisis, and we must not ignore these disturbing signals. Many factors have come together to create what could soon develop into a recruiting emergency. First, our thriving national economy is generating employment opportunities for our young people. Additionally, young Americans increasingly see a college education as the key to success and prosperity. In 1980, 74% of high school graduates went to college but, by 1992, that percentage had risen to 81% and is increasing. As a result, the military must compete head-to-head with colleges for high-quality youth. As I have mentioned already, the percentage of young Americans who are interested in serving in the Armed Forces is also shrinking. Make no mistake about it--the strength of our Armed Forces begins and ends with the men and women who serve our nation. Just as education is the key to a society's success or failure, it is also key to the quality and effectiveness of our military forces--and the MGIB increases included in this substitute budget resolution are a step in the right direction toward providing that key. Veterans are not using the MGIB benefits they earned through honorable military service, and high-ability, college-bound young Americans are choosing not to serve in the Armed Forces. Significant changes in the program will increase program usage and will enable the military services to recruit the smart young people they need. Accordingly, several bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate during the 106th Congress that would significantly improve the MGIB. The Senate has twice passed legislation that included numerous changes designed to enhance educational opportunities under the MGIB, and other bills have been introduced. In the House, MGIB legislation has been introduced by Mr. Stump, Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Shows, and me, the Ranking Democrat on the Committee. H.R. 4268 is the most likely of these legislative initiatives to be passed by the House and move forward. Mr. Speaker, we know H.R. 4268 is only the first step that needs to be taken to improve the MGIB program. H.R. 4268 does comply with pay-go and should be enacted by Congress. It will provide real benefit increases for veterans and their dependents. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the House to vote unanimously in favor of the Veterans and Dependents Millennium Education Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, from our nation's beginning to the present, women have answered the call to duty without hesitation. Like their male counterparts, they put their lives, their goals, and their dreams on hold to serve their nation. Women's participation in the military dates back as early as the Revolutionary War when in June of 1778 at Monmouth Courthouse a woman came to the aid of General George Washington and his weary troops. Moving across the battlefield binding wounds and dispensing water, this woman, who became known as ``Molly Pitcher'', noticed that one of the gun positions had ceased firing. She quickly put down her water pitcher, took over the gun position and fired her cannon. She stayed at her station until relived by artillerymen. Historians recorded her deeds and actions and while her true identity is not known, ``Molly Pitcher'' is representative of the women who served with the Continental Army in our country's fight for independence. During World War I women served as nurses in the armed forces. By the end of the war, 34,000 women had served in the Army and Navy Nurse Corps, the Marines, and the Coast Guard. These women served with honor not only on American soil, but overseas as well. Three Army nurses received the Distinguished Service Cross, a combaqt medal second only to the Medal of Honor. Twenty-three received the Distinguished Service Medal, the highest non-combat award. Many received foreign medals and some 38 women made the ultimate sacrifice for their nation and were buried overseas in U.S. cemeteries. World War II ushered in a new era of service for women in the military. In 1942 laws were passed establishing the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, the Navy Women's Reserve, the Marine Corps Women's Reserve, and the Coast Guard Women's Reserve. With the signing of the Integration Act of 1948, women were given permanent, legal status as enlisted personnel. By the end of the war, roughly 350,000 had served in the armed forces in virtually every occupaiton outside of direct combat. These women all had two things in common--they had all volunteered and they had a desire to serve their nation. The record of women's service to the Armed Forces does not stop with these early wars. Some 265,000 women served during the Vietnam Era and approximately 35,000 women served during the Persian Gulf War. There can be little doubt that these brave women performed a valuable role in service to our nation. Historical documents are full of testimonials attesting to the excellence of women's service, disciplined character and overall positive efffects on the armed services. The brave women who served and continue to serve this nation desire our respect and gratitude. None of us who have served in our country's armed forces will ever doubt the importance of the service of women in the military. Accounting for an increasing percentage of those in uniform today, women now hold positions of leadership and achievement few would have predicted, even as recently as World War II. Today a special observance will be held to honor the women who have served in the Armed Forces. Fittingly, this observance will be held at the Women in Military Service for America Memorial. This will be the third annual observance, honoring women who have served admirably in our armed services, some whom have made the ultimate sacrifice so that Americans may enjoy the liberty and freedom we too often take for granted. Dedicated on October 18, 1997, the Women's Memorial is an inspiring monument that honors and illustrates America's servicewomen throughout history. Sited at the ceremonial entract to Arlington National Cemetery, it is the nation's only major national memorial honoring women who have served in uniform in and between our Nation's wars. I join with many of my colleagues today in saluting the women who have proudly and honorably serve in our Nation's military. The debt which we owe them is grat and it is most appropriate to pause today to pay them tribute for their individual and collective contirbutions to our Nation.

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. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I oppose granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. It is clearly the wrong step to take if we want meaningful change from China on a wide variety of issues that are important to all Americans. It must be noted that Chinese leaders have broken every previous trade agreement they have signed with the United States. What makes us believe that this time will be any different? During the last decade alone, China violated four major trade agreements: the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding on Prison Labor, the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding on Market Access, the 1994 Bilateral Agreement on Textiles, and the 1996 Bilateral Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights. Most recently, after signing the current bilateral in November, China turned its back on the agreement. Their Chief Negotiator stated, ``it is a complete misunderstanding to expect this grain to enter the country . . . Beijing only conceded a theoretical opportunity for the export of grain.'' These governments are not ventures in theory--these agreements should be unbreakable. Another argument for supporting PNTR is that US businesses will introduce the Chinese people to democracy and human rights. However, when we look at how Chinese workers are already being treated by corporations such as Wal-Mart, Timberland, Nike, Alpine and others, it becomes clear that is not the case. Wal-Mart and Nike's operations in China have become synonymous with child labor, forced labor and hazardous working conditions. These are not the values we want to bring to other countries. By granting PNTR, we give up any hope of influencing the PRC's policy on worker and human rights. We are inviting US companies to leave the US to produce goods in a country which does not support a minimum wage, basic safety regulations, or the right of association. Let's export our values--not our jobs. It is not only workers who are oppressed by China. Religious groups too often are denied basic human rights. Recent examples include prison sentencing of Falun Gong members without trials for undetermined sentences. The United States Catholic Conference expressed their opposition to PNTR by stating, ``. . . we have urged that the well- documented violations of the Chinese peoples' human rights, and notably their lack of true religious freedom be seriously addressed and reversed.'' Religious freedom is one of the most important freedoms guaranteed to US citizens. Let us not reward a country who so blatantly disregards this right. The agreement also omits any statement on environmental protections. Having just celebrated the 30th anniversary of Earth Day in the United States, we should continue to be vigilant in our pursuit of a healthy international ecosystem. We would send a message that protecting the world's natural resources and pollution control are not important if we agree to PNTR. According to the Sierra Club, ``nothing was done in the WTO/PNTR package to mitigate the increased risks to endangered wildlife.'' They also note the State Department's 1999 Report of China's Human Rights Practices, ``the China Development Union (which works for environmental and political reforms) virtually was shut down by arrests of its members during the year.'' This agreement is not just an affront against the environment, but also against the Chinese who press the government to protect their natural resources. Some members of the agricultural community are looking favorably on this agreement. However, it should be noted that China already has had overall agricultural surpluses and is still producing a glut of agricultural goods. China has already backtracked on tariff and market- access portions of the bilateral. The PRC will not allow American farmers to participate in a competitive marketplace. Charles McMillion, a founder of the Congressional Economic Leadership Institute, wrote, ``China's agricultural glut is likely to continue with WTO membership. . . .'' Even the National Farmers Union, opposes giving this permanent status: ``We must not unilaterally disarm our Nation's ability to respond if China fails to comply with commitments contained in this agreement.'' Make no mistake, international markets are critical to our farmers. However, we must not engage in agreements with countries who frequently renege on past agreements and who do not believe in the type of fair trade that will benefit American agriculture. President Clinton has said that this is an essential national security issue. He is right--but he is on the wrong side of the argument. There are just too many incidents where China has acted egregiously against American security interests. In recent years, China fired several live missiles in the Taiwan Straight. At the same time, the PRC has supplied other rogue nations with weapons that could be used against U.S. soldiers abroad. Already, five major military organizations--the American Legion, the Fleet Reserve Officers Association, the National Reserve Association, the Warrant Officers Associations, and the Reserve Officers Association--have publicly agreed that it would not be in the best interest of the United States to grant PNTR. This vote is one that will have repercussions for generations to come. We can take this opportunity to stand for military security, human and worker rights, the environment, and fair market access, or we can choose to give a ``blank check'' to China, allowing them to dictate a lower standard. I urge my colleagues to reject PNTR.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably detained this afternoon when the votes were taken on H.R. 4199. On the Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``yea.'' On final Passage, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I join with many of my colleagues today to honor and give thanks to America's minority veterans--the soldiers, the sailors, the men and women of the Air Force, and, of course, my fellow Marines. More of the world is free today than ever before, thanks in no small part to their valor and sacrifice half a century ago. The twentieth century began with much of the globe dominated by militaristic empires. In the First World War, our armed forces were the lever that pried these colonial empires apart. In their ruin, the hideous forces of totalitarianism grew to great power, threatening to engulf us all. In the dark hour, American GIs of every color, of every national origin and creed, left the safety of their homes and began the struggle of the century. In World War II, American forces joined with freedom-loving people from Europe, Africa and Asia to defeat the Axis--that misspent laboratory for human cruelty. The cost was extraordinarily high. Over one and one-half million minority Americans gave their lives to this cause. Some 1.2 million were African Americans, for whom racial slavery was no hypothetical concept. Over 300,000 were Hispanic Americans and another 50,000 were Asian Americans, willing to look past the discrimination they endured toward a better day that only democracy could bring. More than 20,000 Native Americans died for this country in World War II, along with more than 5,000 Native Hawaiians and over 3,000 Native Alaskans. This week the House echoed the words of General Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, who wrote last year that among those who best exemplified courage, selflessness, exuberance, superhuman ability, and amazing grace during the past 200 years was the American GI. ``. . . In this century,'' General Powell said, ``hundreds of thousands of GIs died to bring to the beginning of the 21st century the victory of democracy as the ascendant political system of the face of the earth. The GIs were willing to travel far away and give their lives, if necessary, to secure the rights and freedoms of others. Only a nation such as ours, based on a firm moral foundation, could make such a request of its citizens. And the GIs wanted nothing more than to get the job done and then return home safely. All they asked for in repayment from those they freed was the opportunity to help them become part of the world of democracy . . . Near the top of any listing of the most important people of the 20th century must stand, in singular honor, the American GI.'' The American GI who served during World War II came in many colors and represented many cultures. Those of us who grew up in my generation, and went on to serve in another dark time, have taken courage in the stories of the Tuskeegee Airmen, the Nisei soldiers in Italy, the Navajo code-talkers in the Pacific, the Hispanic fighters who head the roll of the Medal of Honor and others. The diversity of these heroic men and women, and their determination to show what they could do, was a source of their strength. It still is today. In light of the accomplishments of the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II both of defeating the forces of tyranny and dictatorship and in embodying a sense of honor, decency, and respect for mankind, I join in saluting our minority American GIs. But no tribute to the courage and dedication of America's minority veterans should stop with 1945. Having fought for their country, these diverse and courageous men and women could no longer be contained by the brutal rules they had known as children. they were also the footsoldiers and leaders of the civil rights movements that followed World War II. They went home and took on careers and bought homes, set up businesses, entered the professions and all the walks of life that had been barely imaginable for them before the war. They had defended democracy as servicemembers and wanted nothing less than full participation in the democratic institutions they had preserved. I am proud to honor our nation's brave minority veterans. I salute them and thank them for a job well done.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, the loss and suffering of Vietnam veterans and their loved ones due to the use of Agent Orange is one of the sad legacies of the Vietnam War that continues to haunt our nation. Because of our nation's use of herbicides during the war, tens of thousands of Vietnam veterans have died or live daily with the scars of disease. As any veteran will tell you, the scars of war are not just physical, but also emotional. Too many veterans and their loved ones live each day with the continuing pain of dealing with the loss and the illnesses caused by Agent Orange. Next week, the ``quilts of tears'' will arrive in Washington, DC. This is an important event because the quilts tell many of the stories that need to be told about the devastation this tragedy has exacted on too many lives. Recently, I received a letter from Ms. Jennie R. LeFevre, an Agent Orange widow, who eloquently describes her own experiences as well as the legacy left of broken soldiers and broken families. I believe it captures the essence of the Agent Orange tragedy as well as the costs that our nation continues to pay for a war that ended almost twenty- five years ago. The quilts will arrive on the Mall on April 17 and will be available for viewing near the Vietnam Memorial. They will also be on display on Memorial Day on the banks of the Reflecting Pool. I urge my colleagues to visit this moving and unforgettable memorial. The letter from Ms. LeFevre follows: The Quilts Of Tears Agent Orange has been interwoven into the fabric of the lives of many Vietnam Veterans and their families. To tell their story, the ``Quilts of Tears'' project was created. It is to show the world the suffering and pain that the Agent Orange Victims and their families have endured. Each block in the ``Quilts of Tears'' reflect their struggles with life and death issues of Agent Orange. Agent Orange has left invisible scars on the hearts and minds of these victims and their families. I have recently heard these words about Vietnam Veterans. The words are, ``All gave some, but some gave all''. Such is the case of the thousands of who have already lost their lives to the great tragedy Agent Orange, for they were killed in Vietnam and didn't know it. They were killed by the silent and invisible bullet, Agent Orange. Their names do not appear on the black granite Wall in Washington, DC, the ``Quilts of Tears'' are their Wall. The ``Quilts of Tears'' was founded by Jennie R. LeFevre of Shady Side, MD, Founder and President of the Agent Orange Victims and Widows Support Network. The quilts are a Tribute, Memorial and Honor to the Vietnam Agent Orange Victims, both living and dead. Each block represents a victim, and they show the victim's unit in Nam, years served in Nam and the nature of the victim's health problems relating to Agent Orange. At present, there are ten quilts, each measuring 80 by 100 inches, each quilt contains 20 blocks. At displays, the quilts are hung on walls or spread on the ground with walking space between each one to allow viewing from any angle. ``The Quilt of Tears'' project is mentioned throughout the Internet on many of the Vietnam Veterans websites and e- mail forums and indeed the ``Quilts of Tears'' has a website of its own as well. Mothers, sisters, and other family members have adorned the blocks with their loved one's picture, unit patches, military emblems, medals, awards, etc., etc. The quilts were displayed for the first time on the Mall in Washington, DC several years ago. They have since traveled to a quilt show in NJ, several Vietnam Veteran's Reunions in St. Louis, MO, and were also displayed at the Vietnam Veteran Reunion in Kokomo, Ind. They were on display a year ago Veterans Day in the Rotunda of the Utah State Capitol. The quilts are called the ``Quilts of Tears'' because many tears have been shed for these victims. ``The Quilts of Tears'' already have letters of acknowledgment and endorsement from both the Agent Orange Coordinating Council and Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc., headquarters in Washington, DC. I am an Agent Orange widow myself, my late husband, a veteran of both the Korean and Vietnam War, died with cancer in ten parts of his body. Unfortunately, the VA states the cancer he had was not related to his exposure to Agent Orange so there I am not compensated. I believe Agent Orange did cause his death. I am a member of the Agent Orange Coordinating Council, chaired by the late Admiral Zumwalt and have been on the Council for seven years. I made a block for Admiral's son with the words inscribed ``A Great Warrior Son'' which Admiral Zumwalt requested to be put on his son's block. The block is now a part of the Quilts of Tears. ``The Quilts of Tears'' are the Wall for the Agent Orange Victims. Their stories need to be mentioned for all of the suffering and pain they have endured in love and honor for their country, the quilts do just that. One has only to look at the quilts to see for themselves what has happened to these victims. After the display in Kokomo, I received a letter from a veteran who stated the quilts were the most moving piece of art he had seen since the Wall in Washington, DC. A veteran with Agent Orange problems saw the display in Washington, he said he had no one to make a block for him, I told him that I would do it for him. Later he sent me his Purpose Heart to put on the block. One of his prized possessions, he insists that it be placed on his block. These quilts are very dear to the hearts of the Vietnam Veterans, the Agent Orange Victims, and their families. Over Memorial Day weekend last year, a big burly veteran looked at the quilts beside the Reflecting pool, walked a short distance away, fell to his knees and burst into tears. When I went to him and hugged him, he asked ``Am I next?''. The next display of the quilts will be on Monday April 17, 10:00 a.m. at the ``In Memory'' ceremony near the Wall, weather permitting, and they will be on the banks of the Reflecting Pool over memorial Day weekend. I invite you and the general public to come and view them. Recently, I was at an Agent Orange meeting and another Agent Orange widow took a pin off her blouse and put it on my sweater. The pin was a black heart edged in gold, a jagged streak was across the heart to represent a broken heart and in the center of the heart was an orange teardrop. Yes, our hearts are broken for the Agent Orange Victims. The late Admiral Elmo Zumwalt Jr. was a real friend and advocate for the Agent Orange Victims and their families. May his memory and devotion to the Agent Orange issue live on in our hearts forever. Those of us who are a part of the Agent Orange struggle say ``We will never allow the Agent Orange Victims to be Forgotten''. Most Sincerely, Jennie R. LeFevre, Agent Orange Widow.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, as the Ranking Democrat on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I rise to express my strong support for the substitute budget resolution offered by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt, the Ranking Democratic Member of our House Budget Committee. The Spratt budget resolution for fiscal year 2001 is a strong pro-veteran proposal. It deserves the support of every Member of the House. The budget authored by Congressman Spratt provides more discretionary spending in fiscal year 2001 for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) than either the budget proposed by the President or the budget resolution reported by the Committee. With these additional funds, VA can better meet the medical care needs of our nation's aging veterans population. Specifically for fiscal year 2001, the Spratt alternative provides $22.3 billion in appropriations for veterans' programs, $100 million more than the Republican plan and $200 million more than the President's request. Over five years (2001-2005), the Spratt alternative provides $1 billion more than the Republican proposal. Significantly, the Spratt proposal also increases the basic monthly education benefit veterans will receive under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). Educational benefits provided under the MGIB are mandatory spending. This increase in the basic monthly education benefit for veterans who have honorably served our nation in uniform and then pursue post-secondary education is an important first step in restoring our commitment to provide veterans a readjustment benefit for education which is worthy of their service to our nation. Under the Spratt proposal the basic educational benefit for veterans will increase from the current $536 per month for 36 months to nearly $700 per month. This is a well-deserved and much needed 25 percent increase in MGIB education readjustment benefit for veterans. As the gentleman from South Carolina knows, I believe the MGIB benefit should be increased more than has been proposed in the resolution which he has authored. This proposed increase, however, is a strong, positive step to achieving the goal of providing a more meaningful education benefit for our nation's veterans than is provided today. MIGB enhancements are long overdue. I strongly agree with the report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance, which concluded ``. . . an opportunity to obtain the best education for which they qualify is the most valuable benefit our Nation can offer the men and women whose military service preserves our liberty.'' I applaud the Commission's bold, new plan for the MGIB. This proposal, however, must be further strengthened and enhanced if the MGIB is to fulfill its purposes as a meaningful readjustment benefit and as an effective recruitment incentive for our Armed Forces. Since the implementation of the Montgomery GI Bill on July 1, 1985, there have been significant economic and societal changes in America that mandate revisions in the structure and benefit level of this program. In the House, MGIB legislation has been introduced by Mr. Stump, Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and together with Mr. Dingell, I introduced my own bill, H.R. 1071, the Montgomery GI Bill Improvements Act of 1999, to provide benefits for two tiers of service members, those who enlist for a minimum of 4 years (Tier I) and those who enlist for less than 4 years (Tier II). Benefits for Tier I would pay for full cost of tuition, fees, books and supplies, plus provide a subsistence allowance of $800 per month of full-time college studies for up to 36 months. Tier II would increase the basic benefit under the MGIB to $900 per month. According to an analysis performed by the Congressional Research Service last year, the mean earnings of workers 18 years or older in 1998 were $23,320 for high school graduates, $27,618 for those with some college or an Associate's degree and $43,255 for those with a Bachelor's degree. The analysis then calculated the average federal income tax for these workers, using 1999 tax rates for single taxpayers, and using the standard deduction of $4,300 and the personal exemption of $2,750. These figures are listed in the table below. This information confirms our common sense understanding of the importance of education. Education is of benefit to individual servicemembers and veterans and to American society in general. Servicemembers and veterans who have earned through their honorable military service a meaningful readjustment benefit which provides the opportunity to obtain a higher education will be more productive, earn more and based on their increased earnings pay higher taxes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some High college or Bachelor's school associate's degree graduate degree only ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Average Annual Earnings.............. $23,320 $27,618 $43,255 Average Federal Income Tax........... 2,441 3,086 6,796 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The economic impacts are compelling. Servicemembers and veterans who attain a Bachelor's degree pay back 36 percent more in federal tax revenues each year. If the policy rationale for an MGIB benefit increase is not a strong enough argument on its own, it is obvious that an increase would, in essence, be self-funded as well. These calculations, unfortunately, are not given commensurate weight when Congress evaluates cost under pay-as-you-go requirements. As illustrated by the Congressional Research Service, the amount of education that individuals receive has an important influence on their experience in the labor market. For example, those who have completed more years of schooling typically experience less unemployment than other workers do. In addition, workers' earnings generally increase as their level of education increases. These relationships have held up over time, and in some instances, have intensified. Workers with a bachelor's degree are much better off today, compared to less-educated workers, than they were some two decades ago. The average male college graduate earned about 50 percent more than the average male high school graduate during the latter half of the 1970s. In contrast, the premium paid to males with college degrees in 1998 was 92 percent. The average wage advantage of female college graduates over female high school graduates grew from about 41 to 76 percent. Of immediate concern is the ineffectiveness of the MGIB as a readjustment program for servicemembers making the transition from military service to a civilian society and workforce. While costs of higher education have soared, nearly doubling since 1980. GI Bill benefits have not kept pace. In fact, during the 1995-96 school year, the basic benefit paid under the MGIB offset only a paltry 36 percent of average total education costs. A disappointingly low usage rate of 51 percent for 1998 confirms the inadequacy of the current program's benefit levels. Young men and women who serve in our Armed Forces have the option of enrolling in the MGIB when they enter the military. This includes their agreement to a $100 per month pay reduction during the first twelve months of service, for a total contribution of $1,200. Once their initial term of service has been honorably served, a veteran is eligible to receive the basic monthly educational benefit of $536 each month he or she is enrolled in full-time college study. The benefit continues for up to 36 months. Assuming he or she is enrolled for a typical nine-month academic year, the veteran's total benefit for that year is $4,824. With this modest amount he or she is expected to pay for tuition, fees, room and board. The average annual cost of tuition and basic expenses at a four-year public college is $8,774 for commuter students and $10,909 for students who live on campus according to the College Board. Not surprisingly, the same annual costs for four-year private colleges are even higher: $20,500 for commuter students and $23,651 for residents. The disparity between these ever-increasing costs and a veteran's ability to pay for them is clear. This disparity recently prompted key military and veteran organizations to join together with organizations representing colleges to form the ``Partnership for Veterans' Education.'' The coalition launched an energetic campaign calling for Congress to at least increase the basic benefit under the MGIB to $975 per month, enough to cover the $8,774 average annual cost of attending a four-year public college as a commuter student.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise in strong support for the substitute budget resolution offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking Democratic Member of the House Committee on the Budget. The Spratt budget resolution is a strong pro-veteran proposal that deserves the support of every Member of this body. It provides more discretionary spending in fiscal year 2001 for the Department of Veterans Affairs than either the budget proposed by the President or the budget resolution reported by the committee. With these additional funds, VA can better meet the medical needs of our Nation's aging veteran population. Specifically, for fiscal year 2001, the Spratt alternative provides $22.3 billion in appropriations for veterans' programs, $100 million more than the Republican plan and $200 million more than the President's plan. Over 5 years, 2001 through 2005, the Spratt alternative provides $1 billion more than the Republican proposal for veterans' medical care. Significantly, the Spratt proposal also increases the monthly GI bill benefit, which is mandatory spending. This increase in the educational benefit for veterans who have honorably served our Nation in uniform is clearly needed and long overdue. This increase proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is an important first step in restoring our commitment to providing veterans a readjustment benefit for education which is worthy of their sacrifices to this country. Under this proposal, the basic educational benefit for veterans will increase from the current $535 a month for 36 months to nearly $700 a month.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to stand up for America's working families. Today we will vote on a measure that will affect millions of people across America. Unfortunately, the Republicans want to use this opportunity to instantly give another tax break to the wealthy and make working families wait three years for a complete increase in the minimum wage. The Republicans will do anything they can to avoid raising the minimum wage. Last year, even while they raised their own pay, they refused to allow a vote on a measure to raise it. This year, the Republicans say they will raise the minimum wage one dollar over three years, but only if they can hand out $122 billion in tax breaks skewed to the most affluent in our society. Instead of letting Democrats introduce a tax substitute which provides more relief to family farms and small businesses, the Republicans are standing behind a bill which would give the top one percent of all taxpayers almost three-quarters of the tax reduction. As a cosponsor of the Small Business Tax Relief Act, I am proud to say that, under our bill, family farms and small businesses worth up to $4 million would pay no estate tax at all. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic Small Business Tax Relief Act and to enact a minimum wage increase over two years. It is time to take care of America's working men and women.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with my colleague from Illinois, Congressman Tom Ewing, as on original cosponsor of H.J. Res. 86, a joint resolution which recognizes the 50th Anniversary of the Korean War. We live in peace today, and we owe our freedom as much to those who risked or sacrificed their lives in Korea as we do to the other brave men and women who have defended this Nation in the past century. The bitter war in Korea was one of the defining conflicts of the 20th Century. Communist North Korea initiated the conflict on June 25, 1950 when it invaded South Korea with approximately 135,000 troops. President Harry S. Truman and the United Nations determined that this was an act of naked aggression that could not stand and committed ground, air and naval forces. Some 5,720,000 Americans served in the Armed Forces during the Korean War. When it was over, the world was drawn up into two camps that nobody could envision ever changing. Korea was the initial confrontation of the nuclear age, a time President John F. Kennedy once described as ``the hour of maximum peril.'' There was a time when people called Korea ``the Forgotten War.'' Korean War veterans never felt they were accorded the respect and thanks of a grateful National in fair measure. Some 4.1 million Korean War veterans are alive today. They returned home with the same kinds of injuries and needs as veterans of any major war. And make no mistake about it--Korea was a major war. The decisive struggles of the past century were the wars against totalitarianism. The World War II generation faced the Axis powers with distinction and valor. Those who served in Korea--and those who bolstered our defenses around the globe during the Korean War--faced the forces of Stalinism with honor and great courage. That same honor and courage were displayed in a long series of wars and struggles that led to the fall of the Soviet empire. For those of us in the Vietnam generation, the Korean War was never ``the Forgotten War.'' It was part of our youth. I join my colleagues in honoring these gallant men and women. I am honored to cosponsor this bipartisan joint resolution, which recognizes the 50th Anniversary of the Korean War and honors the sacrifice of those who served. Once again, I take this opportunity to say ``Thank you.''

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. This important legislation is long overdue. The earnings limit is a relic of an era when America was in a state of extreme economic despair. Mr. Speaker, today we are experiencing unprecedented prosperity. Our economy is booming. Our unemployment rate is lower than it has been in 30 years. It just doesn't make sense to discourage our nation's seniors from continuing to contribute to our economy by reducing their Social Security benefits. Many of the seniors in my home state of Illinois continue to contribute to their communities through hard work. Repealing the earnings limit will have a very real impact on these seniors. Instead of being punished for their participation in the workforce, seniors should be encouraged to remain working. Eliminating the earnings test makes sense. It will be good for our seniors and good for our economy. And most importantly, we can do it without jeopardizing the future of Social Security. It is something that all of us, on both sides of the aisle, should be able to agree on. But, once again, Republicans are playing politics with the issues that affect our nation's seniors the most. They are clamoring to point fingers at Democrats who have long been in support of amending the archaic earnings limit. But our nation's seniors cannot be fooled. Democrats support repealing the earnings limit while protecting the integrity of Social Security. In the 105th Congress, the Republicans brought an increase of the earning limits to the floor but attached it to a risky tax cut package that would have put Social Security in severe jeopardy. Democrats strongly opposed that bill and offered a measure to raise the earnings limit and make the remaining tax cuts contingent on protecting the solvency of Social Security. This Democratic alternative was a responsible tax cut package that did not raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Not one Republican voted for this measure. This is just one of many cases that demonstrates who is on the side of seniors in this fight. We must stop the finger pointing and come together to protect Social Security for generations to come. This is not the time for politics as usual. The livelihood of our nation's senior citizens is at stake.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong objection to H.R. 2005, the Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999. The title of this bill gives the erroneous impression that it will encourage ``job growth and competitiveness.'' Instead, it will only serve to harm workers and employers. The so-called Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act would terminate any rights of workers to hold wrongdoers accountable for a defective product over 18-years-old, even if the product was designed to be used for many more years. Some workers would be able to collect workers' compensation. However, that does not provide for noneconomic damages such as physical disfigurement, loss of limbs, blindness, infertility or pain and suffering. We cannot allow these workers to be sacrificed for the profit of manufacturers. This bill would also discourage manufacturers from notifying consumers of possible defects. H.R. 2005 makes it more cost effective to ignore a malfunction when they are discovered near the end of the 18-year period than to publicize the defect or correct it. By adopting this 18-year statute of repose, Congress would send the message to America's working families that their injuries and costs are of less importance than any other victim of product malfunction. For example, if a worker and a visitor to the worksite are both injured in the same event, only the visitor would be able to seek damages. I urge my colleagues to see this bill for what it really is: an attack on the workers of America. If you really want to fight for American families, vote ``no'' on H.R. 2005.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with Tom Ewing, my colleague from Illinois, as an original cosponsor of this legislation recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Korean war. On June 25, 1950, Communist North Korea initiated the conflict by invading South Korea with approximately 135,000 troops. President Harry S. Truman and the United Nations drew a line in the sand, committing ground, air, and naval forces. Approximately 5,720,000 members of the Armed Forces served during the Korean war. These men and women deserve our gratitude and respect. Unfortunately, there was a time when people referred to the Korean war as the Forgotten War. The decisive struggles of this century have been the wars against totalitarianism. The World War II generation faced the Axis powers with honor and great courage. That same honor and courage were displayed in a long series of wars and struggles that led to the fall of the Soviet empire. Korea was the initial confrontation of the nuclear age. I am honored to cosponsor this bipartisan joint resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Korean war and honoring the sacrifice of those who served. We are introducing the legislation today, calling upon our fellow Members of Congress to support us.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of our committee and salute him for his outstanding leadership. This conference agreement is due in large part to the commitment and determination of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to address the needs of our Nation's veterans. I also want to thank the other House conferees from both sides of the aisle who worked hard together. Every Member of the House can proudly support this agreement. It strongly reaffirms our commitment to America's veterans. I also want to acknowledge the commitment of the other conferees from the other body to craft this conference agreement. Their cooperation was essential. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of provisions in the conference agreement which are particularly noteworthy. I will describe only a few at this time. Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement responds to the long-term care needs of our veterans. This bill mandates that the VA provide nursing home care to enrolled veterans rated 70 percent or more service- connected disabled, and to veterans with a service-connected disability in need of institutional long-term care for that service-connected disability. Noninstitutional long-term care as part of the basic benefits package as well for VA enrollees. As the author of emergency care legislation, I am particularly pleased that the VA is authorized to provide reimbursement for emergency care not provided in VA facilities to certain enrolled veterans. As the author of the House legislation requiring the VA to adopt, in consultation with chiropractic providers, a formal policy on chiropractic treatment in the VA, I am very pleased that this requirement is included in H.R. 2116. I am also pleased that the agreement authorizes the VA Sexual Trauma Counseling Program and the VA's Federal Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. The conference agreement also contains two important provisions that fortify important, but expensive, programs for vulnerable veterans with severe chronic mental illnesses. Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement also reauthorizes the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project for 4 more years. In addition, the amount authorized annually for this vital program is increased incrementally from $10 million to $20 million per year by fiscal year 2002. This measure also directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish six areas of the country most in need of cemetery space to serve American veterans and their families. I am certain our committee will be vigilant in its oversight of the Department's compliance with the requirements of this provision. The Secretary is also required to contract for an independent study on improvements to veterans' burial benefits. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) for her outstanding leadership on this issue. As the author of the House legislation to establish a rigorous quality assurance program within the VA, I am pleased that the conference agreement mandates a quality review program in the Veterans' Benefits Administration that meets appropriate governmental standards for independence and internal control. Our veterans deserve no less. Mr. Speaker, this is a conference agreement that we can all be proud of, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Veterans Millennium Benefits Act of 1999. H.R. 2116, as agreed to by the conferees, makes significant improvements to the benefits and services provided to America's veterans. I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee, Bob Stump for his outstanding leadership. The conference agreement before the House today is due in large measure to Bob Stump's commitment and determination to address the needs of our Nation's veterans. I also want to thank the other House conferees from both sides of the aisle. Everyone worked well together to produce a conference agreement which every Member of the House can proudly support. It is strong reaffirmation of our commitment to America's veterans. extended care services Defining a direction for VA long-term care is imperative. In my view, the solution must define a clear policy that would preserve and strengthen VA's nursing home program and prompt VA's expansion of the use of non-institutional alternatives to long-term care without forcing unreasonable new costs on VA. This struggle to define appropriate coverage for individuals who need long-term care is confronting our whole health care system right now. I believe VA's future, in large measure, depends on its ability to address the special needs of veterans. Inasmuch as it fails to address veterans' long-term care needs, particularly for the highest priority veterans, I believe its future is jeopardized. One of the primary reasons I became an original cosponsor and architect of the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act was to address the evolution of VA's nursing home programs. My staff has collected data from VA medical centers across the country that indicates VA's role in long-term care is diminishing substantially. There is no longer any guarantee to life placement for many veterans as VA shifts its nursing homes to restorative, rehabilitative and palliative care. Veterans assuredly have a need for all of these types of care, but neither these subacute services, nor non-institutional care is always able to substitute for nursing home care needed for the most impaired veterans. The good news is that this conference agreement will define a direction for VA in managing long-term care--an important, but expensive part of the health care continuum. The legislation initially approved by the House guaranteed extended care and non-institutional care to the system's highest priority users. The goal of the other body was to create a guaranteed package of non-institutional long-term care for all VA enrollees. This agreement ensures institutional and non-institutional care for veterans with service-connected conditions for their service-connected condition and veterans with service-connected disabilities rated greater than 70%. It also establishes authority for VA to provide non-institutional care to all enrolled veterans. In addition, VA will be required to maintain the level of in-house extended care services it offered in 1998, while expanding non- institutional care. The extended care provisions also authorize several pilot projects--one based on the successful and cost-effective Program for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) that offers an integrated and comprehensive array of medical and social services to help the frail elderly remain as independent as possible. Another pilot will examine the appropriate use of assisted living for veterans served by VA. These benefits reassert the importance of long-term care in the continuum of care VA offers to veterans. It also provides a substantial benefit to veterans which VA can accommodate. While setting a new course for long-term care, we have done so in fiscally responsible manner that will not inflict an unfunded mandate on VA. emergency services The conference agreement on H.R. 2116 contains authority to reimburse hospitals for enrolled veterans' emergency care. Today, too many veterans face frustration and failure when they seek VA reimbursement for their emergency care provided by a non-VA provider. By emphasizing its role as a primary care provider, I believe many veterans have logically assumed VA would be responsible for their emergency care costs. Furthermore, an Executive Order in November 1997 provided all federal agencies conform to the President's Patient Bill of Rights. VA did not provide most veterans reimbursement for treatment received from a non-VA provider in a medical emergency. Veterans' experiences in seeking reimbursement from VA for emergency care, even when ``referred'' to a community provider by VA and refused transfer to VA, indicate that this is a significant problem for many VA users. Emergency care is a potentially catastrophic ``hole'' in the safety net veterans believe they have with VA health care. The conference agreement authorizes VA to reimburse providers for emergency care provided to any enrolled veteran who has used VA care within the last two years. It uses a ``prudent lay person'' standard, as the recently approved Patient Bill of Rights did, to determine what constitutes a medical emergency. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for agreeing to support legislation offered by the Senate Minority Leader, a companion to the emergency care legislation I authored and introduced in the House. I am also pleased that, in achieving a productive compromise on the legislation I offered in this and the last session of Congress, this measure is now an even more fiscally responsible proposal that will allow VA to better manage this important new benefit to veterans. sexual trauma counseling services The Ranking Democratic Member of the Health Subcommittee, Congressman Luis Gutierrez, has worked diligently to ensure VA's sexual trauma counseling services are preserved and strengthened. The conference agreement provides that VA must offer a sexual trauma program. This is an important change from current law that makes the program discretionary. While the conference agreement does not include a House provision to authorize reservists to receive program services, a study is required to determine the needs for these services within the reservist population. With a strengthened provision on outreach, this agreement insures sexual trauma counseling and treatment programs are a stronger part of VA's core services. Specialized Services The Veterans Millennium Benefits Act incorporates two measures--one approved by each body. To strengthen VA's paramount special emphasis programs, particularly for seriously chronically mentally ill veterans. The conference agreement on H.R. 2116 requires VA to report on bed closures that affect inpatient substance abuse treatment programs, post-traumatic stress disorder programs or other programs for the seriously chronically mentally ill. A report on bed closures is also required for rehabilitation beds. The report requirement is intended to encourage careful consideration by VA facility directors of the importance of continuing treatment( regardless of setting) for vulnerable veterans, not, as some have suggested, to deter bed closures entirely. The other provision would establish a grant program to allow VA to provide at least $15 million to programs for treatment of post- traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse programs. Restrained budgets have taken a serious toll on these programs that offer care to a very vulnerable population. These two initiatives are intended to restore these very important services that have been diminished due to fiscal constraints. State Home Grants The VA funds state home grants to construct nursing homes and domiciliaries. This is a beneficial relationship between VA and states that almost every state has embraced. As the State Homes increase, so to does veterans' access to long-term care. This is recognized as a benefit by all. For some time, however, grant requests from the states to construct new beds have overwhelmed the ability of the Congress to fund them. As a result, the backlog of grant requests for homes from states that long ago made the commitment to serve veterans through State Homes has grown tremendously. In addition, some State Homes have fallen into disrepair over the more than 35-year history of this VA program. I view the agreement of the conferees as a ``good Government'' proposal. It will allow VA to take care of State Homes that have long cared for veterans and allow VA to give greater priority to states that still have a substantial need for State Home beds. Our veterans will be better served by State Homes because of the conference agreement. Enhanced-Use Lease Authority Recently, GAO claimed VA was ``wasting a million dollars a day'' on its overbuilt infrastructure. While I do not fully support this view, it does document the challenge VA has in managing its vast array of capital assets. One tool VA has found useful to maintain properties not now needed for patient care or other uses is enhanced-use leases. These leases allow VA to continue to hold the title to properties, without having the expense of maintaining them, while they are used for productive purposes by non-VA entities. To make these leases more attractive to those who might consider their use, the conference agreement increases the number of years that developers have use of property from 35 to 75 years. This will allow those who want to make significant investments in property to capitalize on them throughout the useful life of most construction projects. chiropractic treatment I am pleased the conference agreement includes a provision requiring VA to establish a policy on chiropractic care for veterans. While this requirement does not specify the nature of the policy to be established by VA, VA is directed to consult chiropractors in developing this new policy. For too long, VA has lacked a formal policy on chiropractors and the care that they provide in VA. VA should review the medical literature and consider those studies that have shown chiropractic care for lower back pain is at least as effective as ``traditional'' medical treatment. While chiropractic care is not explicitly restricted in the VA, VA institutional barriers create restrictions for chiropractors who want to practice in VA. It is clear that more Americans, as well as mainstream medicine, are embracing certain complementary and alternative therapies. Chiropractic care, which has established a licensure process in every state, is a choice many Americans, including veterans, want. I am glad VA will develop this policy and hopeful it will see the wisdom of offering veterans this choice. dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses of former prisoners of war As an original co-sponsor of H.R. 784, to amend and liberalize the requirements for Dependence and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for the surviving spouses of veterans who were Prisoners of War (POW), I strongly support section 501 of the conference agreement. Section 501 of the conference agreement which follows legislation approved by the other body will fully meet the objectives of H.R. 784 to liberalize the requirements for DIC eligibility. I am also pleased that the bill recognizes the tireless efforts of the late John William ``Bill'' Rolen, a former POW who devoted many years of his life to advocating for the needs of his fellow POWs and their families. Bill was a tireless advocate for our Nation's Ex-POW's and it is only fitting that the last piece of legislation he urged the Congress to adopt be named for him. Section 502 of the conference agreement follows H.R. 708, a measure I authored. This provision restores 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 lost by a surviving spouse of a service-connected veteran upon remarriage if the subsequent marriage is ended. As an original co-sponsor of H.R. 690, I am pleased that at long last bronchiolo-aleveolar carcinoma has been added to the list of radiogenic diseases which are presumed to be service-connected for our Nation's Atomic veterans. Unfortunately, other medical conditions which are clearly radiogenic such as lung cancer still require proof by a dose reconstruction procedure which the Institute of Medicine acknowledged is inadequate in its October 20, 1999 report. I am disappointed that many of our Atomic veterans continue to be denied compensation for their exposures while efforts are underway to compensate exposed civilians. world war ii memorial Both bodies approved legislation which would speed construction of the World War II Memorial, and the compromise measure includes the House language related to this issue. Public Law 103-32 authorized the building of a national World War II Memorial. This legislation assigned responsibility for designing and constructing the memorial to the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC), an independent federal agency created in 1923. The ABMC administers, operates and maintains military cemeteries and memorials in 15 countries around the world. The Commission is also responsible for the establishment of other memorials in the U.S., when directed by Congress. Under the compromise measure, the ABMC is given authority to borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury for a brief period. Under existing law, groundbreaking for the WWII Memorial may not occur until the ABMC, the Memorial's sponsor, has either received cash donations equal to the estimated cost of the Memorial or has sufficient borrowing authority to assure that the Memorial will be completed. ABMC projects that it will not receive sufficient cash donations until the year 2002 and that construction of the Memorial will take three years. The borrowing authority provided under title VI of the conference agreement will enable the ABMC to begin construction next year. ABMC projects that it will need no more than $11 million in borrowing authority and that borrowed funds will be repaid within three years. It is important that construction on this memorial begin as soon as possible because World War II veterans are dying at the rate of 31,000 per month. Establishment of Additional National Cemeteries Approval of legislation by both bodies to expand the national cemetery system clearly demonstrates Congressional concern regarding this issue. Section 211 of H.R. 2280 directed the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery in each of the four areas of the United States most in need of cemetery space to serve veterans and their families. S. 695 directed the Secretary to establish a national cemetery in five specific locations. The compromise measure generally follows the House-approved language and requires the Secretary to establish national cemeteries in the six areas of the United States most in need. The Secretary, when determining those six sites, shall take into consideration the under-served areas listed in Senate Report 106-113--Miami, Florida; Pittsburg, Pennsylvania; Detroit, Michigan; Sacramento, California; Atlanta, Georgia, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. These are the six areas listed in the 1987 and 1994 VA reports to Congress regarding the national cemetery system that remain unserved. VA statistics show that the demand for burial benefits will increase sharply in the near future, with interments increasing 42 percent from 1995 to 2010. Unless new national cemeteries are established soon, VA will not be able to meet the need for burial services for veterans in serveral metropolitan areas of the country, and too many veterans will lack access to the final--and for many, the only--veterans benefit they will receive from our grateful Nation. When the House Committee on Veterans Affairs finally agree last year to enact legislation requested by the VA to enhance the State Cemetery Grants Program, it was only after the Department assured the Committee that the new State program would continue to supplement the national cemetery system--not replace it. However, the Administration's FY 2000 budget for VA failed to include a request for the funding required to initiate any of the needed new national cemeteries. I strongly urge the Administration to include the funding necessary to establish the six new cemeteries required under this provision in its FY 2001 budget. Use of Flat Grave Markers at Santa Fe National Cemetery, New Mexico The compromise agreement of a provision, derived from S. 695, which authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for flat grave markers at the Sante Fe National Cemetery, New Mexico. Although I supported accepting this Senate provision, I want to make it clear that I continue to strongly believe that upright grave markets should be the standard for the national cemetery system. It is only under very unusual circumstances that flat markers should be approved, and I would not support any effort to eliminate the requirement under current law that requires upright grave markers. Study on Improvements to National Cemeteries The conference agreement includes a provision, based on section 212 of H.R. 2280, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to contract for a study of national cemeteries. The study is to include an assessment of-- 1. One-time repairs required at each national cemetery, 2. The feasibility of making appearance of national cemeteries as attractive as the finest cemeteries in the world, 3. The number of additional cemeteries that will be required for the interment of veterans who die after 2010, and The report must also identify, by five-year period beginning with 2010 and ending with 2030-- 1. The number of additional national cemeteries required during each five-year period, and 2. The areas in the U.S. with the greatest concentration of veterans whose burial needs are not served by national cemeteries or State veterans' cemeteries. Additionally, the report will include information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of using of flat grave markers and upright grave markers in national cemeteries as well as a report on the current conditions of flat marker sections at all national cemeteries. I want to repeat, however, my earlier-stated commitment to requiring, with only occasional exceptions, the use of upright markers in national cemeteries. Section 212(b)(1)(D) of H.R. 2280 required that an independent study on improvements to veterans' cemeteries required under section 212 include a study of improvements to burial benefits under chapter 23 of title 38, United States Code. This study was to include a proposal to increase the amount of the benefit for plot allowances under section 2303(b) of title 38, to better serve veterans and their families. I am very pleased that the compromise agreement includes a provision based on this section. Under the compromise agreement, Subtitle C of Title VI requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to contract for an independent study on improvements to veterans' burial benefits. The matters to be studied under this section include: 1. An assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of the burial benefits provided under chapter 23 of title 38, United States Code, in meeting the burial needs of veterans and their families. 2. Options to better serve the burial needs of veterans and their families, including modifications to burial benefit amounts and eligibility, including the estimated cost for each modification. 3. Expansion of the authority of the Secretary to provide burial benefits for burials in private-sector cemeteries and to make grants to private-sector cemeteries. This provision further requires the contractor to submit the report to the Secretary no later than 120 days after the contract is completed. No later than 60 days following receipt of the report, the Secretary is required to transmit the report, together with any comments regarding the report the Secretary considers appropriate, to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs. For many veterans, the only benefits they receive related to their military service are those provided at their death. I believe it to be a matter of national honor that the level of burial benefits provided adequately meet the needs of veterans and their families. This report will help us ascertain what changes and improvements need to be made in order to achieve this goal. availability of montgomery gi bill benefits for preparatory courses for college and graduate school entrance exams S. 1402 included a provision which would enable veterans to use their benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (chapter 30, title 38, United States Code) to pay for the costs of (a) preparatory courses for tests that are required or utilized for admission to an institution of higher education, such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and (b) a preparatory course for a test that is required or utilized for admission to a graduate school, such as the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). Many colleges and graduate schools rely heavily on the results of these tests when assessing individuals seeking admission to their schools, and veterans should have the opportunity to take the preparatory courses designed to increase test scores. Accordingly, I am very pleased that this provision is included in the conference agreement. montgomery gi bill enhancements approved by the senate S. 1402, the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Programs Improvements Act of 1999, would increase benefits and expand educational opportunities under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and also increase rates of survivors and dependents educational assistance. Unfortunately, the Senate did not also provide the off-sets required under the Budget Act to pay for their GI Bill amendments. Although I welcome the Senate's interest in veterans' education programs, without offsetting savings the House would not take up for consideration a conference agreement that included the Senate-approved MGIB amendments. Because GI Bill enhancement's are long overdue. I introduced H.R. 1071, the Montgomery GI Bill Improvements Act of 1999, earlier this year. I strongly agree with the assertion in the recent report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance that ``. . . an opportunity to obtain the best education for which they qualify is the most valuable benefit our Nation can offer the men and women whose military service preserves our liberty.'' I believe that if the Montgomery GI Bill is to fulfill its purposes as a meaningful readjustment benefit and as an effective recruitment incentive for our Armed Forces, it must be significantly improved. Accordingly, H.R. 1071 would establish a two-tiered program. Tier I would enhance the GI Bill in the following ways for those who enlist or reenlist for a minimum of four years-- Pay the full costs of tuition, fees, books and supplies. Provide a subsistence allowance of $800/month (indexed for inflation) for 36 months. Eliminate the $1,200 basic pay reduction required under current law. Permit payment for approved specialized courses offered by entities other than educational institutions. Tier II would enhance the GI Bill in the following ways for those who enlist for fewer than 4 years-- Increase the current basic benefit from $536/month to $900/month. Eliminate the $1,200 basic pay reduction. Permit trainees to receive accelerated lump-sum benefits. Permit payment for approved specialized courses offered by entities other than educational institutions. It is my hope that next year Congress will adopt a budget resolution that will enable us to enact H.R. 1071 and significantly improve the Montgomery GI Bill. continuing eligibility for Educational assistance of members of the armed forces attending officers training school I am very pleased that included in the compromise measure is a provision derived from S. 1402 that would allow servicemembers to retain their eligibility under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) if they are discharged during their initial enlistment period to receive a commission as an officer. The Committee recently learned that an enlisted servicemember who completes Officer Training School (OTS) or Officer Candidate School (OCS) is discharged upon completion of this school in order to accept an immediate commission as an officer. If the discharge occurs before the servicemember completes his or her minimum period of active duty required to establish MGIB eligibility, the servicemember becomes ineligible for education benefits. The Subcommittee on Benefits held hearings on October 28, 1999 on a draft bill to allow the two periods of active duty to be considered as one, thereby permitting these individuals to maintain their MGIB eligibility. Similar language is included in the compromise agreement. It was not the intent of Congress that certain young men and women selected to attend OTS or OCS to be forced to make a choice between being commissioned and maintaining their GI Bill eligibility. This provision will correct this unintentional inequity in law. report on veterans' education and vocational training by the states The compromise agreement includes a provision, derived from S. 1402, that would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs listing veterans' education and vocational training benefits provided by the States. This report would include benefits provided, by reason of service in the Armed Forces, to active duty servicemembers, veterans, and members of the Selected Reserve. I believe the information included in this document will be very helpful to veterans, and I urge the VA to update this initial report annually. Extension of Authority for Housing Loans for certain Members of the Selected Reserve Prior to 1992, only individuals who served on active duty qualified for VA housing loan benefits. Public Law 102-547, however, included a pilot program which granted loan eligibility, through October 1999, to persons who had at least six years of honorable service in the Selected Reserve. Under a provision of P.L. 105-368, eligibility was extended through September 30, 2003. Earlier this year, it was pointed out to me by the executive director of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS) that, although they greatly appreciated the extension enacted last year, the limitation on the availability of the program hampered their efforts to use this benefit as an incentive to recruit individuals who would agree to six-year enlistments. In response to this very legitimate concern, I introduced H.R. 1603, which would have made this eligibility permanent. The provisions of H.R. 1603 were included in H.R. 2280 and were approved by the House. Although the other body was unwilling to agree to providing permanent eligibility for VA housing loans for certain Selected Reservists, I am pleased the conference agreement extends this eligibility through September 30, 2007. Quality Assurance The Quality Assurance provisions of section 801 of the bill are designed to assure that the Veterans Benefits Administration's (VBA) internal quality assurance activities meet the recognized appropriate governmental standards for independence. This will require the establishment within VBA of a quality assurance program which comports with generally accepted government standards for performance audits. For years our Nation's veterans who filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for benefits associated with their military service, particularly service-connected disability compensation, have been forced to contend with a VA claims adjudication process which has been both too slow and too inaccurate. Recent information suggests that after waiting years for a decision, one out of three veterans may find that the rating decision made by VA was wrong. Untimely and inaccurate decision-making by the VA, and particularly the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), have been twin problems which have plagued veterans, veterans service organizations and Members of Congress who assist their veteran constituents. While experience clearly indicated otherwise, between 1993 and 1997, VBA reported that the quality of its work was nearly error free as measured by VBA. Quality standards had been relaxed to the point that VA was reporting an accuracy rate of 97%. To his credit, the Under Secretary of Veterans Benefits, Mr. Joe Thompson instituted, on a trial basis, a new system for measuring the quality of the claims adjudication work performed by VBA. This new quality measure, the Strategic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) was tested and used operationally in 1998. STAR use has been focused on claims submitted by veterans which require the VA to rate the claim, make a determination as to whether a medical disability is service-connected or non-service-connected and determine the degree of disability manifest. Using the STAR methodology, the accuracy of various actions taken during the adjudication process are used to determine if the case was correctly or incorrectly decided. A case is either all right or all wrong. Using STAR, the accuracy rate was 64%--fewer than two out of three claims were correctly decided. While STAR provided a more realistic assessment of the quality of VA claims adjudication, STAR does not currently meet generally accepted governmental standards for independence and separation of duties. Reviews of regional office decisions are made by persons who are also decision makers reporting to managers whose evaluations are enhanced if quality results are shown. There is not sufficient staff whose primary focus is improving the quality of claims adjudication at the regional office level. In order to pinpoint errors, it is important to be able to identify regional offices which have specific high or low accuracy rates and to ascertain the reasons for discrepancies between regional offices. One measure of quality, the percentage of decisions appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals (the Board) which are either reversed or remanded back to the regional offices for further work, is particularly disturbing. During fiscal year 1998, 17.2% of the appealed decisions were reversed outright by the Board. An additional 41.2% of the appeals were remanded for further action by the regional offices. Another measure of accuracy is the integrity of data relied upon by the VBA. During 1998, the VA Inspector General issued a report finding that data entered into the VBA computer system was being manipulated to make it appear that claims were processed more efficiently than was actually occurring. Problems are not confined to the Compensation and Pension Service. In reviewing VA's compliance with statutory financial requirements, the General Accounting Office (GAO) noted that VA's home loan program was unable to perform routine accounting functions and had lost control over a number of loans which were transferred to an outside loan company for continued loan servicing. VA was not able to obtain an unqualified audit opinion as a result of these deficiencies. On February 24, 1999, VA's Inspector General reported that the $400 million vocational rehabilitation program was placed at high risk after the Qualify Assurance Program for that service was discontinued in 1995. 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 VBA, I requested GAO to review VBA's quality assurance policies and practices. On March 1, 1999, GAO issued a report which determined that further improvement was needed in claims-processing accuracy. In particular, GAO determined that VBA's quality assurance activities did not meet the standards for independence and internal control. These standards are contained in the Comptroller General of the United States, United States General Accounting publication Government Auditing Standards (1994 Revision). Section 801 of the bill is designed to give VBA sufficient flexibility to design the program in a manner so as to achieve its objective of improving the quality of claims adjudication. I have been informally advised by the General Accounting Office that under VBA's present structure, placement of the functions within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Under Secretary for Management would provide sufficient independence to meet the relevant standards. In fiscal year 2000, the GAO will pay over $22 billion in monetary benefits to veterans. I expect that the careful development and implementation of a program of quality assurance, which meets generally accepted governmental auditing standards for program performance audits, will provide impartial and independent oversight of the quality of claims adjudication decisions and will improve the confidence of veterans in a system which is designed to recognize the sacrifices our Nation's veterans have made. With the establishment of independent oversight of the qualify of claims adjudication decisions, 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. The conference agreement changes the way decisions concerning claims for compensation and pension, education, vocational rehabilitation and counseling, home loan and insurance benefits will be reviewed and evaluated. Employees who are independent of decisions makers will be devoted to identifying problems in the decision-making process. By identifying the kinds of errors made by VA personnel, VBA managers will be able to take appropriate action. I expect that remand rates will be significantly reduced and veterans will find that VA makes the right decision the first time the claim is presented. As the author of the language, I am pleased the conference agreement contains these provisions. We can not expect any real improvement in the timeliness of claims adjudication unless the barriers to quality decision making are identified and addressed in a systemic fashion. Our nation's veterans deserve to have their claims for VA benefits decided right the first time. By enacting this provision, Congress has put the VA claims adjudication process on the right track. Our veterans deserve no less. advisory committee on minority veterans The Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans has offered concrete recommendations for the last five years to the Secretary on the special challenges of minority veterans who seek care and benefits from VA. Unlike many other Federal Advisory Committees, the authority for the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans is temporary. H.R. 2116 as agreed to by the conference extends the authority for this Committee through 2003. I will continue to work to ensure that the authority for the Committee is offered parity with other Federal Advisory Committees and extended indefinitely. homeless veterans' reintegration programs I am very pleased that the conference agreement reauthorized the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Programs (HVRP). Under the compromise agreement, this program would be extended for four years through fiscal year 2003. The authorized funding levels for the program would be $10 million in FY 2000, $15 million in FY 2001, $20 million in FY 2002, and $20 million in FY 2003. Although section 302 of H.R. 2280 would have extended this program for five years at authorized funding levels of $10 million for FY 2000, $15 million for FY 2001, $20 million for FY 2002, $25 million for FY 2003, and $30 million for FY 2004, the compromise is a good one. It will enable the community-based organizations across the country that are funded by this program to continue their very effective work helping homeless veterans reenter the workforce. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). (Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).

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 myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. EVANS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)