Lane Evans

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, the activation and deployment of uniformed service members to the Balkans area has generated numerous inquiries about the reemployment rights of members of the National Guard and Reserves who are required to leave a position of employment to answer a call to duty. I hope the following explanation will provide all of my colleagues some basic information on the law that provides these rights and guidance on what a constituent who might contact you concerning this issue can do to receive more information and assistance. The job entitlements of our citizen-soldiers are provided by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994, at 38 U.S. Code, Section 4310-4333. The Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) of the Department of Labor administers and enforces USERRA. USERRA provides that a person be promptly reemployed following completion of qualifying military service. The position to which the person is entitled is essentially the position he or she would have attained had the military absence not occurred. To be eligible for reemployment rights, the person must generally give the employer prior notice of the military duty and the employee must have received a discharge from the military that is not punitive in nature. For example, an honorable discharge would qualify, but not a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge. There is a cumulative 5-year limit of military service after which an employer is not obliged to reemploy a returning service member. There are important exceptions to the 5-year limit, including voluntary duty in support of an emergency situation or war, involuntary callups for operational missions or contingencies, and required training of National Guard and Reserve members. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) maintains a website on the Internet that contains USERRA information designed to help protected persons and employers understand the law. The ``USERRA Advisor'' can be found on the VETS home page at www.dol.gov/dol/vets. VETS also has offices in each of the States that can provide information and assistance for your constituents as well as your District office staff members. VETS offices are listed in the Blue Pages of local telephone directories under the U.S. Department of Labor.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing H.R. 1764, the ``Veteran's Compensation Equity Act of 1999''. This legislation will provide more equitable treatment to approximately 100,000 older veterans who receive service-connected disability compensation and who are also eligible to receive retirement pay based upon their military service. Under current law, the amount of military retirement pay received by a military retiree is reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the amount of service-connected disability compensation the military retiree receives. This reduction in military retirement pay when the military retiree is in receipt of service-connected disability compensation is intended to prevent dual compensation. The notion of dual compensation is erroneous. Service-connected disability benefits are paid to compensate a veteran for an injury or illness incurred or aggravated during military service. Retirement benefits are paid to provide an income to military retirees who have spent at least 20 years of their lives working for and serving our country as members of the Armed Forces. These two programs are completely different and payments made by these programs should not be considered duplicative. This treatment of military retirees is simply inequitable. A veteran receiving service-connected disability compensation could become eligible for civil service retirement pay based on his or her subsequent work as a civilian employee of the federal government. This individual, unlike the military retiree, can receive the full amount of both of the retirement benefit which has been earned and the service- connected disability compensation for which he or she may be eligible. The ``Veteran's Compensation Equity Act of 1999'' will reduce and then eliminate the reduction in military retirement benefits for veterans who are entitled to both military retirement pay and service- connected compensation benefits. This bill will limit the reduction in military retirement pay to 50 percent when the military retiree attains age 65. The reduction in military retirement pay would be completely eliminated when the retiree reaches age 70. Retired military personnel who were fortunate enough to have emerged from military service unscathed receive military retirement pay, but do not qualify for service-connected disability benefits. In many cases, these retirees are able to earn additional income through non-military employment and thereby accrue Social Security or other retirement income benefits. These retirement benefits are not reduced by receipt of service-connected disability benefits. Military retirees who were not so fortunate, are required to forfeit all or a portion of their military retirement pay in order to receive service-connected compensation benefits due to illnesses or injuries that were incurred or aggravated during their military careers. These veterans, as a result of their service-connected medical conditions, face diminished employment possibilities and, therefore, a diminished ability to earn additional income through non-military employment. They therefore lose the opportunity to accrue Social Security or other retirement income benefits. In general, Social Security disability benefits received by retirees are offset by monies received under state Worker's Compensation laws. However, the Social Security statute provides that this offset ends when the worker attains 65 years of age. Furthermore, while recipients of Social Security benefits who earn income have their Social Security benefits reduced as a result of their earnings, this offset is reduced at age 65 and eliminated entirely at age 70. While all veterans who are subject to the concurrent receipt offset are unfairly penalized, my bill would begin to rectify the injustice which falls most heavily on our older veterans. This bill will promote fairness and equity between military retirees and Social Security retirees by reducing the amount of this offset by 50 percent at age 65 and eliminating it entirely at age 70. Military retirees who have given so much to the service of our country and suffered disease or disabilities as a direct result of their military service do not deserve to be impoverished in their older years by the concurrent receipt penalty. I commend Mr. Bilirakis, an original co-sponsor of this bill, for his efforts to address the problems caused to our military retirees by the statutory prohibition on concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I urge my other colleagues to support this bipartisan effort to promote fairness for our Nation's older military retirees.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a good friend of mine, Sam Gilman of Illinois. Tonight the Quad Cities Israel Bonds Council will award Sam with the Jerusalem Medal for dedicated service to his community and to Israel. I have learned so much from Sam about public service over the years and I take great joy in seeing him recognized for his outstanding achievements. He knows what it means to give of yourself to help others. After graduating from college, he served our country in the United States Army during World War II. Following law school at Harvard, Sam returned to the Quad Cities to practice law and later became a director of the Pinnacle Banc Group. He has also helped build enduring institutions that serve the entire community, including founding WQAD and WKPT and serving as chairman of the board of Franciscan Medical Center. Sam has been instrumental in developing a strong Jewish community and support for Israel in western Illinois. His leadership as a director and past president of the Jewish Federation of the Quad Cities, as founder of the Quad Cities Yom HaShoah Committee, and past director of the Tri-City Jewish Center strengthened those groups and laid a foundation to be erected for an active community for many years to come. I have witnessed Sam's love for Israel and his dedication to helping Jews in need around the world. In 1986 we went together with a group to Israel and I learned to appreciate the deep affection he has for that land and its people. Two years later, on a journey to the former Soviet Union, I joined Sam as we met with refuseniks and worked to help Soviet Jews fighting for their freedom under a repressive regime. Sam's work and that of countless others in the Jewish community is directly responsible for securing the right of Jews to emigrate from the former Soviet Union and for helping Israel to resettle this mass exodus of people in a land where they can now be free. Finally, I have been fortunate to benefit from Sam's wise counsel and support for almost 20 years. He has been a true mentor to me as I first sought to represent western Illinois in Congress, and as treasurer of my campaign, he has always had a critical role in every race that I have run. Most of all, I am proud to call Sam a friend and look forward to many more years of sharing his advice.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend of mine, Sam Gilman of Moline, IL. On April 29, 1999, the Quad Cities Israel Bonds Council will award Sam with the Jerusalem Medal for dedicated service to his community and Israel. I have learned so much from Sam about public service over the years, and take great joy in seeing him recognized for his outstanding achievements. Sam understands what it means to give of yourself to help others. After graduating from college, he served his country for 4 years in the U.S. Army during World War II. Following law school at Harvard University, Sam returned to the Quad Cities to practice law, and later become a director of the Pinnacle Banc Group. He has also helped build enduring institutions that serve the entire community, including founding WQAD and WQPT and serving as Chairman of the Board of Franciscan Medical Center. Sam has been instrumental in developing a strong Jewish community and support for Israel in Western Illinois. His leadership as a director and past president of the Jewish Federation of the Quad Cities, as founder of the Quad Cities Yom HaShoah Committee, and past director of the Tri-City Jewish Center strengthened those groups and laid a foundation for an active community for years to come. I have also been a witness to Sam's love for Israel and his dedication to helping Jews in need around the world. In 1986, we traveled together in a group to Israel, and I learned to appreciate the deep affection he has for all that the land and its people represent. Two years later, on a journey to the former Soviet Union, I joined Sam as we met with refuseniks and worked to help Soviet Jews fighting for their freedom under an oppressive regime. Sam's work and that of countless others in the Jewish community is directly responsible for securing the right of Jews to emigrate from the former Soviet Union and for helping Israel to resettle this mass exodus of people in a land where they can be free. Finally, I have been fortunate to benefit from Sam's wise counsel and support for almost twenty years. He has been a true mentor to me since I first sought to represent Western Illinois in Congress, and as treasurer of my campaign committee, has played a critical role in every race I have run. Most of all, I am proud to call Sam a friend, and look forward to many more years of sharing his advice.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the National Cemeteries Act of 1999. This legislation requires the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to establish three new national cemeteries. Each of these new cemeteries will be established in an area of the country determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to be most in need of Cemetery space to serve veterans and their families. VA statistics show that demand for burial benefits will increase sharply in the near future, with interments increasing 42% 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 several metropolitan areas of the country. I am concerned that too many veterans lack access to the final--and for many, the only--veterans benefit they will receive from our grateful nation. The number of veterans who lack adequate access to burial in a national cemetery will increase during the next decade, and the Department of Veterans Affairs has not demonstrated a commitment to establishing obviously-needed new national cemeteries. I was deeply disappointed that the Administration FY 2000 budget for VA failed to include a request for the funding required to initiate new national cemeteries. When we on the Veterans Affairs Committee finally agreed last year to enact legislation requested by the VA to enhance the State Cemetery Grants program, it was only after we were assured by the Department that this program would continue to simply supplement the national cemetery system--not replace it. In view of this, I expected the Department to demonstrate its commitment to the expansion of the national cemetery system by including funding for at least one new cemetery in the FY 2000 budget request. It is because that funding was not in the VA's budget request that I am introducing this legislation today. Accordingly, my bill would require the Secretary to establish a new national cemetery in the three areas of the country that are determined by the Secretary to be most in need of burial space. Additionally, this legislation would require the Secretary to provide Congress with a report 4 months after enactment of the National Cemetery Act of 1999. This report will identify the three areas where new national cemeteries are to be established, a schedule for cemetery construction, and an estimate of the costs associated with establishment of these cemeteries. In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed legislation authorizing the purchase of ``cemetery grounds'' to be used as national cemeteries ``for soldiers who shall have died in the service of the country.'' The fourteen cemeteries that were established that year were the beginning of what has become the National Cemetery System. Today, more than 130 years after the first national cemeteries were established, the National Cemetery Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs is responsible for more than 2.2 million gravesites at 115 national cemeteries in 39 states. Of these 115 cemeteries, 57 are open to all interments, 36 can accommodate cremated remains and family members of those already interred, and 22 are closed to new interments. On May 31st of this year, many of us will attend Memorial Day observances at our national cemeteries during which we will, with humility and thanks, pay sincere respect to those whose sacrifices and dedication have protected the ideals on which America was founded. We will remember the more than 42 million patriots who, through two centuries and too many wars, have taken up arms to defend America and to guarantee that the blessings of liberty are secure. Remembering, however, is not enough. We as a nation must also meet our historic commitment to provide health care, compensation, and readjustment assistance to the living--and provide a hallowed resting place for our American heroes when they die. I urge Members to support the National Cemeteries Act of 1999.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference agreement on House Concurrent Resolution 68, the budget resolution for next fiscal year. This conference agreement, like the budget passed earlier by this house, fails to provide adequate resources needed to maintain and improve programs established by this Congress to serve our nation's veterans, their dependents and survivors. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pronounced the administration's proposed budget next year for veterans to be underfunded by at least $2 billion and possibly more. The chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Arizona, who strongly opposes unwarranted spending, recommended an increase of $1.9 billion over the Administration's proposed funding level. The Chairman's recommendation is a clear and unmistakable signal of the funding crisis in veterans' programs and benefits. While this conference agreement appears at first glance to begin to address the funding crisis in veterans' programs and benefits, this budget resolution is really nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. Unbelievable to our nation's veterans, this budget resolution cuts discretionary spending, which primarily provides veterans' health care, by $1.4 billion dollars in fiscal year 2001 compared to next fiscal year. Veterans across America will wonder what is put in the water in Washington. This budget resolution is a blueprint for destroying veterans' benefits and programs. This budget resolution must be rejected.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf on myself and Congresswoman Berkley, I am today introducing H.R. 1286 the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act. This important legislation provides a presumption of service-connection for certain radiation-related illnesses suffered by veterans who were exposed during military service to ionizing radiation. These veterans include those who participated in atmospheric testing of a nuclear device, who participated in the occupation of Hiroshima or Nagaski between August 6, 1945 and July 1, 1946 and who were interned as prisoners of war in Japan during World War II and were therefore exposed to ionizing radiation. During their military service, these veterans put their lives and health at risk. They were, in most cases, sworn to secrecy concerning the nature of their work. They were not provided with adequate protection from radiation. the amount of radiation to which they were exposed was not measured. Albert ``Smokey'' Parrish, a veteran who served at the Nevada test site wrote ``We, the Atomic veterans feel like an innocent man in prison for life, and no one will listen to the facts of the case.'' Under present law, veterans who engaged in radiation risk activities during military service are entitled to a presumption of service- connection for some illnesses, but for other illnesses veterans must prove causation by ``dose reconstruction estimates'' which many reputable scientists have found fatally flawed. Because of the recognized problems inherent in dose reconstruction, last year, the Department of Veterans Affairs Deputy Under Secretary for Health, Dr. Kenneth Kizer, wrote that he personally recommended strong support as a ``matter of equity and fairness'' for legislation similar to the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act which was then proposed by Senator Wellstone. It is not the fault of veterans that accurate records of their exposure to ionizing radiation were not kept and maintained. In fact, many veterans have been not been able to obtain their medical records relating to their exposure during military service despite their best efforts. Records have been lost and records of radiation-related activities were classified and not made available to the veterans seeking compensation. According to Dr. Kizer, ``the scientific methodology that is the basis for adjudicating radiation exposure cases may be sound, the problem is that the exposure cannot be reliably determined for many individuals, and it never will be able to be determined in my judgment. Thus, no matter how good the method is, if the input is not valid then the determination will be suspect.'' Our atomic veterans were put in harm's way in the service of our government. However, our government failed to collect the data and provide the follow-up that would enable our atomic veterans to effectively pursue claims for the harm which resulted. Further, Congresswoman Berkley and I agree with the statement in the 1995 final report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: ``When the nation exposes servicemen and women to hazardous substances, there is an obligation to keep appropriate records of both the exposures and the long-term medical outcomes.'' Our Nation failed to keep records on the exposures experienced by our atomic veterans. Veterans should not suffer for that neglect. Let us right the injustices visited on our atomic veterans since the days of World War II. Congress should enact a presumption of service-connection for illnesses which are likely to be due to radiation risk activity. Our veterans deserve this simple act of justice.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The irony of today is that as many brave American servicemen and women are joining with our allies in a military campaign to bring an end to uncontrolled aggression, Congress is turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the health care needs of its veterans. The budget resolution for next year provides a modest $900 million increase in funding for veterans' health care. This increase is one- half the increase recommended by the Republican majority of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. It is less than one-third the total increase for VA funding supported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs Democrats. Would Members of Congress want to rely for their health care on a health care system as underfunded as the VA's? I doubt it. But Congress apparently has a different, lower standard for health care for our servicemen and women. Even more troublesome is the fact that its supporters tell us time and time again that it provides an unprecedented increase in funding for veterans' health care. What they fail to say is that the Republican budget provides an unprecedented decrease of $1.1 billion for Veterans' Affairs in fiscal year 2001. After years of inadequate funding under both Democratic and Republican administrations, a consensus exists today for the added funding needed to provide veterans with the highest quality health care and other benefits and services that they have earned. As Republican Members of the House have said, ``We must keep our promises to the veterans.'' I agree. Approving additional funding for veterans' health care as proposed in the Clement substitute and other budget alternatives would do that and would be an important step for this Congress to take if Congress is going to do more than simply talk the talk on veterans' issues. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, for years our Nation's veterans who submitted a claim to 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. Too often the adjudication of a veterans' claim has taken not days, not weeks, not months, but years. Recent information suggests that after waiting years for a decision, one out of three veterans may find that the 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 have sought to assist their veterans constituents. While experience clearly indicated otherwise, VBA consistently reported that the quality of its work was nearly error free as measured by VBA. Between 1993 and 1997, VA was reporting an accuracy rate of 97%. This was unfortunately like the fox not only guarding the hen house, but also keeping the inventory of hens. 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%--less that two out of three claims were correctly decided. While STAR has 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. There is not sufficient staff provided for reviewing enough cases to make statistically valid accuracy determinations 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. In addition to the problems documented by the STAR report, VBA is facing the impending retirement of experienced senior staff and several years of staff reductions which have impeded VBA's ability to resolve increasingly complex cases in a timely and accurate manner. 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 that 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 Quality Assurance Program for that services 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 Veterans' Benefits Administration, in July of 1997, I requested the GAO to review the quality assurance policies and practices of the VBA. On March 1, 1999, GAO issued its report which determined that further improvement is needed in claims- processing accuracy. In particular, GAO has determined that VBA's quality assurance activities do not meet the standards for independence and internal control. To assure that VBA's internal quality assurance activities meet the recognized appropriate governmental standards for independence, I have introduced H.R. 1214, which provides for the establishment within VBA of a quality assurance division which comports with generally accepted government standards for performance audits. In addition, my Additional and Dissenting Views and Estimates submitted to the Budget Committee for VA's fiscal year 2000 budget requests additional funding for 250 full time employees for VBA. It is my intention that if additional staff funding is provided, some of the additional staff be used to adequately staff this program. While VBA has made some improvements by developing an accuracy measurement which focuses on VA's core benefit work--rating claims for benefits--further improvements are needed in claims processing. Currently, there is no formal division within VBA devoted to providing the policy and program oversight necessary to assure quality and accuracy of claims processing The possible consequences of this for both veterans and taxpayers is troubling. In fiscal year 2000, the VA will pay over $22 billion dollars in monetary benefits to veterans. Yet only nine full-time employees are allocated to STAR to oversee the quality of the claims adjudication process. Without a mandated program of quality assurance, which meets generally accepted governmental auditing standards for program performance audits, impartial and independent oversight of the quality of claims adjudication decisions will not be assured. With the establishment of independent oversight of the quality of claims adjudication decisions, veterans can have more confidence in the decisions made by VA and the number of claims which are remanded because of the poor quality of claims adjudication will be reduced. With better initial decisions and fewer remands for re-adjudication, veterans will receive a quicker and a more accurate response. More claims will be adjudicated correctly the first time. This will not occur overnight, but without an independent oversight of the quality of claims adjudication decisions it may never exist. The ``Veterans' Claims Adjudication Improvement Act of 1999'', H.R. 1214, will help address these problems. It 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 decision 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. Hopefully, remand rates can be significantly reduced and veterans will find that VA makes the right decision the first time the claim is presented. We cannot expect any 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 H.R. 1214, Congress can help put the VA claims adjudication process on the right track. Our veterans deserve no less. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the ``Veterans' Claims Adjudication Improvement Act of 1999'' and for Congress to give this measure quick and favorable consideration.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 70. As a former Marine and as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs since 1983, I know that Arlington Cemetery is sacred ground. Last year, however, the General Accounting Office told us that the eligibility requirements for burial at Arlington needed clarification. H.R. 70 addresses these concerns. It would remove the ambiguity and guesswork from the eligibility process for burials at Arlington. Additionally, and this is very important, the bill would make it easier for the American people to understand the requirements of burial at our Nation's most revered cemetery. This is an excellent piece of legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Veterans Expedited Military Medals Act, legislation that will address an inexcusable situation--the growing backlog at the Department of Defense in providing replacement military medals and unawarded decorations to our nation's veterans. Unfortunately it can now take years for veterans to receive medals that they earned through their service to our nation. I know from personal experience. In my own congressional district there are several veterans, some who have waited over two years, to receive medals they earned, but were never awarded. One veteran from the town of Milan, Illinois has waited almost two years to receive his Good Conduct Medal. Another vet from Princeton has tried to get his American Campaign Medal, but has now waited almost a year with no results. My district office has pursued these cases aggressively, but the reality is that no amount of pressure the follow-through can overcome what is essentially a resource problem. The issue revolves around back-up cases. The personnel centers who process applications for the separate services for never-issued awards and replacement medals have accumulated unconscionable backlogs in requests by veterans. In one personnel center alone, around 40,000 requests have been allowed to back up. The resulting time delays have denied veterans across the nation the medals and honors they have rightfully earned. DOD claims that it doesn't have the people or resources to speed up the process. But it wouldn't take much to make a dent in the problem. For example, the Navy Liaison Office was averaging a relatively quick turnaround time of only four to five months when it had only five personnel working cases. Now that it has only three people in the office, it is having a hard time keeping up with the crush of requests. DOD must make putting more resources towards this problem a priority. However, it seems like the same old story--our government forgets the sacrifices servicemen and women have made as soon as they leave military duty. We can do better. My legislation, which is the companion bill to Senator Harkin's legislation in the Senate, would direct the Secretary of Defense to establish and carry out a plan to make available the funds and resources necessary to eliminate the backlog in decoration requests. The bill would also direct that funding and resources should not come at the expense of other personnel service and support activities within DOD. It is a common sense approach which will allow DOD to be involved in solving the situation while structuring a quick and direct solution to the problem. I am proud that the legislation enjoys the support of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). I hope that it is something Congress can quickly act on in the near future. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation which would follow through on our commitment to ensure that the service of our fighting men and women is properly honored and not forgotten.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today there are hundreds of men and women in the 17th District of Illinois who are without work because we have failed to protect them from illegally dumped steel. Last year, when the European Union felt the steel crisis blowing their way, they quickly sealed their borders to protect their industry and its employees. Yet, American steelworkers were left to twist in the wind as the administration dragged its feet on enforcing our antidumping laws and taking an aggressive approach to conquer the crisis. As the months have passed, the crisis has steadily worsened. If we don't stand up for the working men and women of our steel industry, who will? Today, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the answer to the steel problem. By imposing quotas, and establishing a monitoring system to uphold our trade laws, H.R. 975 accomplishes what should have been done long ago--protection for out steelworkers, our steel industry and requiring that other nations share the burden of the steel crisis. I would also like to remind my colleagues of what caused this crisis: the International Monetary Fund's harsh austerity measures that cause developing countries to export cheap steel. Until we stop funding, promoting and enabling the IMF to wreak havoc on financially strapped nations with their ``bad economic medicine'', we will continue to watch our trade deficit skyrocket and Americans go without work. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Bipartisan Steel Recovery Act.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, ten years ago, on March 15, 1989, President Bush hailed the creation of the new Department of Veterans Affairs by saying, ``There is only one place for the veterans of America, in the Cabinet Room, at the table with the President of the United States of America.'' Ten years ago today, veterans took their rightful place at the highest executive level of Federal Government. The Department of Veterans Affairs Act, passed the previous October by the 100th Congress, was implemented and the new Department of Veterans Affairs became a reality. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs became the 14th member of the President's cabinet. While the United States has the most comprehensive system of assistance for veterans of any nation in the world, it was not until 10 years ago that our Nation's veterans received the hard earned recognition provided them by the creation of a cabinet level department. It is also somewhat ironic that veterans waited so long for the establishment of a cabinet level department as the foundation for the Department of Veterans Affairs was established some 350 years earlier in 1636, when the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony, who were at war with the Pequot Indians, approved a measure stating that disabled soldiers would be supported by the colony. The establishment of the Department of Veterans Affairs fulfilled this Nation's promise to those who had risked it all to preserve, protect and defend by giving them direct representation before the Nation's chief executive. As Rep. G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery, Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee at the time the legislation passed, said, ``We didn't make the government bigger, we gave our veterans a bigger voice in government.'' Rep. Gerald Solomon, ranking minority member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs at the time, said, ``The change directly supported Congress's and the President's effort to rebuild the military. A strong VA and strong veterans' benefits programs are the underpinning of a viable all-volunteer military force. We understood that then, and we understand it now.'' After becoming a cabinet level department in 1989, VA began to grow, not in size, but in importance, operating as an equal to other departments. As a department, VA has played a major, if not the lead, role in issues that have dominated our national agenda--homelessness, health care management, government reinvention and reengineering, AIDS, workplace diversity and medical research to name a few. As a cabinet department, VA has successfully embarked on bold initiatives to reinvent the veterans' benefits delivery process and reengineer the nation's largest hospital-based health care system into a patient-focused health network delivering a uniform package of health maintenance services to more veterans in more locations than ever before. VA is today undergoing an evolution like never before in its history with the goal of continuing to provide better service to our Nation's veterans, their survivors and dependents. As a cabinet level department of federal government, VA is well positioned to fulfill the Nation's promise to its veterans well into the 21st century and to give renewed meaning to Lincoln's call for this nation ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.'' We expect and will accept no less.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I support H. Con. Res. 42 and encourage my colleagues to vote for it. At this delicate moment, our support of the President is critical to the success of this peace agreement. I am always wary of committing our uniformed men and women into conflict. However, I strongly believe that we cannot turn a blind eye to a genocide that is steadily destroying Kosovo and threatening the peace throughout the region. Rejecting this resolution is complying with the continued slaughter of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. To date, over 400,000 people have been driven from their homes, 200,000 have perished and entire villages have been pillaged in the name of ``ethnic cleansing.'' As the sole remaining superpower, we have a responsibility to the people of the Balkins, NATO and the greater global community to take our proper role in helping to end this tragedy. I believe that our allies have truly stepped up to the plate--the bulk of the peacekeeping forces will not be American, but European. Our participation will help achieve a European solution to this crisis--something that we must encourage. Now is not the time to step away from our responsibility, but to seize it. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of H. Res. 32, a resolution calling for free, fair and transparent elections in Indonesia, but also to commend the attention of my colleagues to the plight of the people of East Timor, the tiny island illegally occupied by Indonesia for over 25 years. I have been greatly encouraged by recent demonstrations of reform in Indonesia, yet the post-Suharto government still has far to go to prove that it is serious about addressing basic human rights. Most urgent is the humanitarian crisis that continues to embroil the people of East Timor. Even as President Habibie announces that he will support independence for East Timor should its citizens reject an autonomy plan, I receive daily reports indicating a serious increase in violent actions by several armed militias, including those by the Makihit, Alfa, Saka and Mahidi. In the last two months, these groups have reportedly attacked villagers in several areas, most recently around Sua, killing civilians and precipitating a refugee crisis with over 5,000 seeking refuge on the grounds of a local church and school. Indonesian Generals have admitted to arming these groups. In this supposed era of promise, turmoil and unrest persist. In addition, there are reports of on-going and extreme human rights abuses on the part of the Indonesian military in the areas of West Papua, Irian Jaya, Aceh, and Ambon. The summary executions, kidnappings, arbitrary arrest, beatings and torture of civilians continue to create a climate of fear, intimidation. I believe it will be virtually impossible to hold a truly democratic election. While I support the spirit in which H. Res. 32 was written and support its intentions wholeheartedly, Congress must take this opportunity to encourage the Clinton Administration to press the Indonesian government to address the civil and human rights issues plaguing this nation and its provinces. In addition, we must continue to call for the withdrawal of Indonesian troops, the introduction of U.N. monitors and the immediate and unconditional release of political prisoners in East Timor. Without these crucial steps, Indonesia will not be on a true path to reform.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today, with the leadership of Congressman Christopher Smith and the bipartisan support of 48 of my colleagues, I sponsored the International Military Training Transparency and Accountability Act. This legislation will ensure that the United States armed forces ceases to assist foreign militaries that do not share our respect for human rights. Specifically, the bill prohibits the U.S. from providing military services or training to countries that are restricted by U.S. law from receiving International Military Education and Training (IMET) or other military assistance because of their strong record of human rights violations. This bill will also ensure that the Department of Defense cannot circumvent Congressional intent and find other methods in which to engage with foreign militaries that are notorious human rights abusers. The Pentagon's relationship with the Indonesian military in recent years demonstrates the urgency and necessity of this legislation. In 1992, Congress banned U.S. taxpayer funded IMET training in the wake of the brutal Dili massacre, where over 270 peaceful demonstrators were shot down in an East Timor cemetery. This ban was enacted in an attempt to put an end to the egregious human rights abuses the Indonesian government committed against its own people and the people of East Timor. Since 1975, the Indonesian government has engaged in a reign of terror in East Timor, implementing a policy of severe repression of the Timorese people. Since the onset of the occupation, over 200,000--one- third of the original population--have perished. Extra-judicial killings, kidnappings, tortures and imprisonments have become a way of life for those who challenge the authoritarian regime. In 1997, I wrote Secretary of Defense William Cohen, requesting detailed information on the training of members of the Kopsassus, the elite, special forces division of the Indonesian military. The Kopassus is infamous for its role as the ruthless enforcer of Indonesian's illegal occupation of East Timor. Shortly thereafter, I received a response from the Pentagon describing the United States' continued training of the Indonesian military under another program--the Joint Combined Exchange and Training (JCET) program. While the JCET program is legal, it violated the spirit of Congressional efforts to ban any military assistance to the notoriously brutal and repressive Indonesian armed forces. Under the auspices of the JCET program, U.S. Special Operations forces trained the Kopassus in sniper skills, marksmanship, and close quarter combat, all while the Kopassus continued to repress and terrorize the people of East Timor. In Spring, 1998, the Pentagon announced it would cease its military relationship with Indonesian indefinitely. Yet, the Pentagon's decision to end military exercises with the Indonesian forces should not have come voluntarily. It should be illegal for our armed services to engage in any manner with known human rights violators. More important, this legislation will limit U.S. assistance to egregious violators of human rights. In Latin America, and in Africa-- the U.S. continues to train and engage with forces that are well-known for their disregard for basic human dignity. The International Military Training Transparency and Accountability Act will clarify our stance on engagement with brutal military forces. We have a responsibility to ensure that our national security policy embodies the very democratic principles it seeks to defend.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor of the ``Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Services Improvement Act of 1999.'' This measure contains the improvements in benefits and services for America's service members and veterans recommended by the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance. By way of background, the Commission was established by Public Law 94-275 and was directed to review the programs and benefits designed to facilitate the transition from military service to civilian life for those who have served in uniform. The Commission was encouraged to be thorough in its analysis of existing programs and to be bold in its recommendations for program changes and improvements. Without question, the Commission has met those challenges and transmitted to Congress a meticulous examination of transition programs in place today and an impressive list of recommendations to improve and enhance those existing programs and benefits. Many of the Commission's proposals, particularly those related to veterans' education and training, can serve as a blueprint for the 106th Congress. Of particular interest to me is the recommendation to significantly increase and expand educational opportunities under the Montgomery GI Bill. I agree with the Commission's statement that education ``. . . is the most valuable benefit our Nation can offer the men and women whose military service preserves our liberty.'' I know from first hand experience the benefits of these educational benefits and I look forward to discussing this and the Commission's other initiatives in depth during upcoming hearings. I want to commend Tony Principi, chairman of the Transition Commission, and all of the Commissioners for their excellent service, dedication, and hard work on behalf of America's servicemembers and veterans. There will be those who will say the recommendations made by the Transition Commission are too costly. If we value a strong defense and believe our Armed Forces and society in general will reap real benefits from the service of our best and brightest in our military, we cannot afford not to improve the transition benefits we offer to those who serve our nation in uniform.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join today with the gentleman from Arizona, the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, to introduce the Arlington National Cemetery Burial Eligibility Act. This important legislation is deserving of the strong support of each Member and I am hopeful this measure will receive prompt attention and consideration early in the 106th Congress. The measure which Chairman Stump and I are introducing today is similar to legislation approved by the House last year. This measure, like the legislation approved by the House during the 105th Congress, establishes eligibility rules for burial at Arlington National Cemetery--one of our Nation's most hallowed sites. As noted by the General Accounting Office, the eligibility requirements for burial at Arlington National Cemetery need clarification and the act introduced today provides that clarification. In particular, this important legislation is intended to eliminate the inconsistency in the granting of waivers for burial at Arlington National Cemetery which has occurred in the past. As both a Marine and a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I know that Arlington National Cemetery is truly sacred ground, especially for our Nation's veterans and their loved ones. Like many others, I was extremely concerned by reports, later shown to be totally without any substantiation, that waivers for burial at Arlington National Cemetery had been granted in exchange for major political contributions. While an expedited examination of this allegation by the General Accounting Office found ``no evidence'' of waivers for contributions, it did highlight some of the serious flaws in the existing process for burials at Arlington National Cemetery. The Arlington National Cemetery Burial Eligibility Act which Chairman Stump and I are introducing today addresses those concerns by removing most of the discretion, ambiguity and guesswork for eligibility for burials at Arlington National Cemetery. This legislation will also make it easier for the public to understand the requirements for burial at Arlington National Cemetery. I commend the gentleman from Arizona, Chairman Stump, for his strong and effective leadership and his stalwart efforts to establish, in law, eligibility for burial at Arlington National Cemetery. I invite all of my colleagues to support and cosponsor this most important legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to assure that all veterans enrolled in VA health care will receive coverage for emergency care services delivered both in and outside of VA facilities. Currently, most veterans lack access to reimbursement for such care unless the emergency occurs on VA grounds. Many VA medical centers don't routinely offer emergency services and those that do lack an emergency room that is open twenty-four hours a day. Compounding the problem is the fact that most VA medical centers are further from their patients' places of residence than other community providers. If a veteran receives emergency room care from a non-VA provider, he or she is denied reimbursement even if a trip to the nearest VA hospital would be life threatening. Last year the President asked all federal agencies to identify where they were deficient in complying with the Patient Bill of Rights. The VA determined it needed legislation to reimburse veterans for emergency care it didn't provide. Wile being encouraged to view VA as their managed care provider, veterans could risks financial ruin if VA failed to comply with the same emergency care reimbursement standards applied to private-sector managed health care providers. Even before veterans began enrolling last year for VA care, VA's responsibility for reimbursing veterans for the cost of emergency health care services was confusing. VA would provide emergency care to only those veterans who were either already at VA when the emergency occurred or to those veterans who were able to physically present themselves at a VA facility before receiving required emergency care from a non-VA provider. VA's physical ``tag up'' requirement creates confusion for the majority of veterans who are not on grounds during an emergency. Too often in crisis situations, veterans lack the time to resolve who will pay for their care before seeking treatment. This situation is likely to become even more confusing as VA begins to market itself as a managed care provider featuring enrollment, a basic benefits package and a new primary care focus--characteristics commonly associated with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). Most HMOs reimburse enrollees for pre-authorized emergency care. The pending legislation would give VA the authority to reimburse emergency care delivered by any provider if veterans had no other coverage for such care. Many veterans are literally ``banking on'' VA either furnishing or reimbursing their care for any condition in an emergency. Too many veterans and their families have been financially devastated because they assume VA will be there for them in a health crisis. I believe veterans should be able to count on VA in an emergency. I am encouraged by the recent recommendation by a coalition of veterans service organizations, the Independent Budget group, to add funds to the FY 2000 VA Medical Care budget in order to provide emergency care to veterans. I encourage my colleagues to cosponser and support this important legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, with the end of each Congress, we lose not only members but good friends. That is the case for me today as Glenn Poshard leaves the House but not without making his mark. Glenn is a member of my state delegation and I know all members join me in congratulating him on his service. Glenn has also been my neighbor--his office is next to mine and I enjoyed walking to a vote with him and discussing issues. More than that, he is a good friend who I greatly respect and admire. In many ways, Glenn's impact on this institution has gone unnoticed. He worked to bring people together, to develop harmony and crate an environment that allowed us to rise above the partisanship. And that will have a lasting impact on all of us. Glenn's character and commitment are unmatched. As a Congressman, he has been a model of integrity and a man of incredible depth and intelligence. He truly has put his principles to work. He has always remembered his roots and stood up for average citizens. That is why early on I backed his candidacy for Governor. And it is why I have been proud to serve with him and why I know his constituents were proud to have him represent him. Glenn Poshard is the genuine article: Veteran, Teacher, Parent, Democrat, and a Great Friend and a Great Congressman. I hope the end of this Congress will not mark the end of his public service. We need him working for people and the people of this country need him working for them.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the four articles of impeachment against President Clinton, because I do not believe that such a grave step is in the best interests of our country. All of us in public life have to be accountable for our actions, and there is no question that the President's conduct was deplorable. Having reviewed the evidence, however, I do not believe that the case has been made with sufficient clarity that the President's conduct warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office. Heavily weighing in my decision are the charges made in greatest detail by the Independent Counsel, Mr. Starr, addressing conduct unrelated to the President's public and official duties. During the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon, my predecessor, Tom Railsback, noted that there was ``a serious question as to whether something involving the President's personal tax liability has anything to do with his conduct in the office of the president.'' Later, the Committee on the Judiciary rejected the article of impeachment against the President on those grounds. Today a majority of the public continues to approve of President Clinton's ability to perform his duties, and does not wish for him to be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. I do not believe we should impeach President Clinton based on misconduct not clearly related to the President's official duties. Let me be clear, a decision by the House not to impeach will not exonerate the President. He will remain subject to indictment and prosecution for his conduct in the court of law when he leaves office. I do believe that the Congress should fashion an appropriate response to his actions, which places the national interest first. I am greatly disappointed that excessive partisanship on the part of the Committee on the Judiciary prevents us from discussing censure.