Lane Evans

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide health care treatment to veterans exposed to Nasopharyngeal Radium Irradiation Therapy (NRIT) and to include these veterans in its Ionizing Radiation Registry (IRR) Program. Joining me as original co-sponsors of the bill in the House are Representatives Bob Filner, Collin Peterson, Corrine Brown, Frank Mascara, Barbara Lee, Luis Gutierrez, Ciro Rodriguez, Julia Carson, Neil Abercrombie, and Joseph Kennedy. The measure I am introducing today is similar to legislation submitted to Congress by the Administration and closely reflects S. 1822, as introduced by Senator Specter and cosponsored by most of the members of the Senate Veterans Affairs' Committee: Senators Thurmond, Jeffords, Murkowski, Rockefeller, Akaka, Wellstone, Lieberman, and Murray. During the 1940's to the 1960's, many submariners and air crew members were occupationally exposed to NRIT to prevent ear injury. The Centers for Disease Control has estimated that as many as 20,000 service members may have received this treatment. Treatment was not limited to service members. This therapy was prevalent among civilians and was even used to treat children. Studies have found statistically significant associations between exposure to this therapy as a child and development of certain head and neck cancers. Associations between health outcomes and adult exposure to therapy are less clear, but poor recordkeeping on the use of this treatment may not allow new studies to determine definitive associations within the veteran population and previous studies have been flawed. VA has noted that the high levels of exposure among treated individuals may call for special consideration of this population. Exposure to radiation during nasopharyngeal treatments was greater than the exposure of many of the veterans who already populate VA's IRR. Given the high incidence of exposure to this therapy for occupational purposes among the veteran population, the relatively high levels of exposure these individuals were subjected to, and the scientific evidence that exists, the Administration requested that Congress authorize these veterans' treatment in VA medical facilities. It is time to give the veterans who received NRIT treatments--many of whom did so involuntarily--the benefit of the doubt. It is time to allow VA to treat them and the conditions it believes may be linked to this exposure and add them, along with other veterans who were exposed to far lower levels of radiation, to its registry. This is a responsible bill--and it's the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to sign on as a cosponsor to this important legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Justice For Atomic Veterans Act of 1998. This legislation will grant a presumption of service-connection for illnesses which have been identified as being significantly or suggestively increased in persons who have been exposed to radiation risk activities to those men and women who, during the course of their military service, were subjected to unknown doses of radioactive material. 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 must prove causation by ``dose reconstruction estimates'' which many reputable scientists have found fatally flawed. By VA estimates, only about 50 veterans have been able to show the requisite reconstructed dose to establish service- connection. It is certainly not these veterans who are responsible that accurate records of their exposure were not kept and maintained. In addition, many veterans have been unsuccessful in obtaining access to even the inadequate medical records relating to their exposure during military service. In some cases, records have reportedly been lost. In other cases, records of radiation-related activities were classified and not made available to the veterans seeking compensation. It is also well known that many veterans were not provided with adequate protection to the radiation exposures to which they were subjected during their military service. Our atomic veterans were put in harm's way in service to our Nation. But our government failed to collect the data and provide the follow-up that would enable our atomic veterans to effectively pursue claims for the harms which resulted. 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. We failed to keep the records of the exposures of our atomic veterans. They should not suffer for our neglect. Let us right the injustices visited on our atomic veterans since the days of World War II. Presumption of service-connection for illnesses which are likely to be due to radiation risk activity should be enacted. I thank the Members who have agreed to be original cosponsor of this legislation and urge all other Members to support this legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, this is really a vote on whether we are truly dedicated to resolve the full accounting of our missing from the Vietnam war. As the Veterans of Foreign Wars have said, passing this resolution of disapproval will only hurt our efforts at a time when we are receiving the access that we need from the Vietnamese to determine the fate of our POW/MIAs. As many of the speakers have said, there is no more authoritative voice on this issue than our former colleague and now Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson. He supports the Jackson- Vanik waiver. As a prisoner of war who underwent years of imprisonment in the notorious Hanoi Hilton, Ambassador Peterson should have every reason to be skeptical and harbor bitterness towards the Vietnamese. Yet he believes that the best course is to further develop relations between our two nations. He knows this because it is in our Nation's best interest. We have achieved progress on the POW/MIA issue because of our evolving relationship with Vietnam, not despite it. He also knows that without access to the jungles and the rice paddies, without access to the archival information and documents, and to the witnesses of these tragic incidents, we cannot give the families of the missing in action the answers they deserve. Our Nation is making progress on providing these answers. Much of this is due to the Joint Task Force on Full Accounting, our military presence in Vietnam which is tasked with looking for our missing. I have visited these young men and women and they are among the bravest and most gung ho group of soldiers I have ever met. Every day, from the searches of battle sites in treacherous jungles or the excavation of crash sites on the sides of mountains, they put themselves in harm's way to perform a mission they deeply believe in. It is truly touching to these men and women, some of whom were not even born when our missing served, so dedicated to a mission that they see as a sacred duty. They told me time and time again, allow us to remain here so we can complete this mission, so that we can do this job. If we pass this resolution today, we risk all the progress we have made. I ask my colleagues to please vote against the resolution.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. Yesterday, I appeared before the Rules Committee. I urged the Committee to make in order an amendment I proposed to offer to H.R. 4250. My amendment would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to reimburse veterans enrolled in the veterans health care system for the cost of emergency care or services received in non-Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. My amendment is similar to H.R. 3702, the Veterans' Access to Emergency Health Care Act, which I introduced earlier this year. Under the Evans amendment, veterans enrolled in the VA health care system would be reimbursed for the cost of emergency care they receive from a non-VA facility when there is a ``serious threat to life or the health of a veteran.'' The legislation we are considering today attempts to write into law certain basic health care protections, including emergency care protections, for millions of Americans not enrolled in the VA health care system. My amendment, which was blocked by the Rules Committee, would have afforded similar protections for the millions of American veterans who receive their health care from the VA. Yesterday's action by the Rules Committee is a disservice to American veterans, and comes on the heels of another successful--but misguided-- Republican effort to strip away compensation benefits from veterans who became addicted to tobacco while in the military. In the apparent view of the Republican leadership, veterans should have known better than to become addicted to nicotine while in the service, despite the obvious role played by our government and the tobacco companies to facilitate smoking by service members. As yesterday's Rules Committee action suggests, veterans apparently should also have known better than to get sick and require emergency medical care outside a VA hospital. This Congress has no conscience when it comes to issues of significance to our American veterans. Without my amendment, low- income, or service-connected disabled veterans who rely on VA for their health care needs would be provided no basic protections for emergency medical care. It's just not right, and it's a slap in the face to the men and women who have risked their lives in defense of our nation and the values we hold so dear. I urge my colleagues to stand up for our veterans and vote against this rule.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the VA-HUD Appropriations Act of 1999. Like the Administration's FY 1999 budget request, I do not believe this bill does enough to honor the sacrifices our veterans have made for our country. However, I do believe this bill is the best we can do for our veterans in this Congress, which is why I will vote for the bill. In a perfect world, veterans health care funding would be at higher levels than provided for in this legislation. As health care costs continue to rise, there is simply no way the VA can provide consistently high quality care to veterans at the present funding levels. An unfortunate result of such shortfalls has been to force VA's specialized care programs to take a back seat to other spending priorities. In the process, important veteran-oriented initiatives such as spinal cord injury centers, blind rehabilitation programs and programs for homeless and mentally ill veterans are not receiving the emphasis they deserve within VA. We cannot allow VA's special program and our commitment to our nation's veterans to unravel. I also believe that funding levels for the VA Inspector General's office should be sufficient to allow the IG to conduct more of its extremely important work. At a minimum, the IG's budget should be increased by $3.298 million over the House level to enable the IG to perform critical follow up work in response to serious patient care issues raised by veterans and VA employees during the past year. I am pleased with Chairman Lewis' willingness to consider increased funding levels for the VA Inspector General's office during conference wit the other body, and I thank the Oversight Subcommittee Chairman, Terry Everett, for working with me on a bi-partisan basis to pursue this needed additional funding. Despite its deficiencies, this legislation represents a modest improvement over last year's appropriation. Given the short time left in this congressional session, I believe we can ill afford to revert to last year's funding levels as part of a continuing resolution in the eleventh hour of this Congress. I urge members to support this bill with the hope that the next Congress can do more to honor the sacrifices made by our veterans.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my strong objections to the budget recommended by the Committee on the Budget. This is an anti- veterans budget. It represents a direct frontal assault on the benefits and programs which Congress has carefully considered and enacted into law. This budget proposal assumes the Committee on Veterans Affairs will achieve 5-year savings totaling $10.4 billion, of which $10 billion is to be achieved by prohibiting service-connected disability compensation for tobacco-related illnesses. Who are we kidding, here? As all of our colleagues know, and as the Committee on the Budget certainly knows, Congress has already spent the savings associated with this provision. Is there a single Member of this body who does not understand that shortly before the Memorial Day break, Congress included a provision to prohibit service-connected disability compensation for tobacco-related illnesses in H.R. 2400, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and the savings associated with that provision have already been spent, to partially pay for the spending authorized by H.R. 2400? As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget knows, the transportation bill is now awaiting the President's signature. It will become law within a matter of days. My question to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget is simple and direct: Will he commit to crediting the Committee on Veterans Affairs with achieving this savings directed by House Concurrent Resolution 284, if it reports legislation to prohibit service-connected disability compensation for tobacco-related illnesses? If not, what other veterans' benefits does the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, want this committee to reduce or eliminate? The Committee on Veterans Affairs has always fulfilled its duty to be responsible and meet the reconciliation targets established for it. Since 1986, in fact, reductions in veterans' programs and benefits have resulted in savings to the Federal Government of over $12 billion. That is $12 billion in veterans' benefits savings over 13 years. It is irresponsible to call on veterans to give up another $10.4 billion in benefits this year. America's veterans have already given enough. I cannot and I will not support this anti-veteran budget being proposed by the Committee on the Budget. I strongly urge the Members of the House to reject House Concurrent Resolution 284.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, on this special day, National Maritime Day, it is fitting that we recognize and honor those men and women who have served our country by transporting our Nation's cargoes in times of peace and prosperity and in times of war and grave danger. The service of merchant mariners to our Nation includes the heroic effort put forth during World War II by the thousands of young men who volunteered for service in the United States Merchant Marine. Many of these merchant mariners were recruited specifically to staff ships under the control and direction of the United States government to assist the World War II effort. These seamen were subject to government control, their vessels were controlled by the government under the authority of the War Shipping Administration and, like branches of military service, they traveled under sealed orders and were subject to the Code of Military Justice. Some volunteers joined the Merchant Marines because minor physical problems, such as poor eyesight, made them ineligible for service in the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps. Others were encouraged by military recruiters to volunteer for service in the Merchant Marines because the recruiter recognized that the special skills offered by the volunteer could best be put to use for our country by service in the Merchant Marines. Most importantly, all were motivated by their deep love of country and personal sense of patriotism to contribute to the war effort. In order to staff our growing merchant fleet during World War II, the U.S. Marine Commission established training camps around the country under the direct supervision of the Coast Guard. After completing basic training, which included both small arms and cannon proficiency, seamen became active members of the U.S. Merchant Marine. These seamen, often at great personal risk, helped deliver troops and war supplies needed for every Allied invasion site from Guadalcanal to Omaha Beach. More than 6,500 merchant mariners who served our country during World War II gave the ultimate sacrifice of their lives, including 37 who died as prisoners of war, and almost 5,000 World War II Merchant Mariners remain officially missing and are presumed dead. In addition, 733 U.S. Merchant ships were destroyed. Even after the surrender of Japan, members of our Merchant Marine fleet were in mortal danger as they continued to support the war effort by entering mined harbors to transport our troops safely home. After the war ended, they carried food and medicine to millions of the world's starving people. In spite of the illustrious service of the World War II merchant mariners, then-Secretary of the Air Force, Edward Aldridge, inexplicably made the decision in 1988 to define the dates for World War II service differently for merchant mariners than for those who served in the other American forces. The effect of this decision was to deny veteran status to those merchant mariners who served between the dates of August 15, 1945 and December 31, 1946, the official end of World War II. H.R. 1126, the Merchant Mariner Fairness Act, which has wide bipartisan support from over one-half of the Members of the House, will correct this erroneous administrative decision by making the service eligibility period for World War II merchant mariners identical to that established for others. It is important to remember that during the time period addressed by this bill, August 15, 1945 through December 31, 1946, 12 U.S. Flag Merchant Vessels were lost or damaged as a result of striking mines, and some of the merchant mariners serving on these vessels were killed or injured. Fully understanding the tremendous risks they faced, merchant mariners, nonetheless, willingly went into mined harbors so that they could bring our American troops home to their families and friends. I believe these courageous merchant mariners, who were subject to the risk and dangers of war between V-J Day and the official end of the war, have been wrongfully denied veteran status. They faced the very real hazards of war-time hostile actions and should not be denied the status of veteran for purposes of laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs because their sea-going contributions began after August 15, 1945. H.R. 1126 will correct this injustice. It has been more than a half century since the end of World War II. How much longer must these aging merchant mariners, who are forgotten patriots of World War II, wait for their service to our Nation to be properly and fully honored and acknowledged? H.R. 1126 will finally provide appropriate recognition: veteran status for a few thousand World War II American merchant mariners. While this status will enable them to be eligible for veterans' benefits, it is likely that the only benefit most will receive is proper recognition of their contribution to the war effort and the right to a veteran's funeral. The merchant mariners who would be granted veteran status by this bill are aging. They will not qualify for educational benefits. As Medicare beneficiaries, most already have longstanding relationship with their medical providers and are unlikely to seek VA health care. Nonetheless, the merchant mariners of World War II will receive the long-overdue thanks from the Nation they served faithfully and courageously. I encourage those Members who have not already cosponsored the Merchant Mariners Fairness Act to celebrate National Maritime Day by joining Members on both sides of the aisle as a cosponsor of this important legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today's rule on the FY99 DOD Authorization Act does not include my amendment which would have barred U.S. special forces training of the Indonesian Military in FY99. I am gravely disappointed that the Rules Committee did not see fit to allow the House to consider this issue at such an important juncture in our nation's policy toward Indonesia. Today, Indonesia is entrenched in an unprecedented political and economic crisis. Recent reports of student deaths at the hands of Indonesian police opening fire on demonstrations is just one example of the violence and terror that have become routine within the Suharto regime. This type of repression is just the latest chapter in the Suharto regimes' transgressions against its own people. No where is that more apparent than in the conduct of the Indonesian military. The use of the Indonesian military in the intimidation, torture and murder of both Indonesians and the citizens of East Timor is widespread, documented and undisputed. The brutal massacre of over 270 peaceful demonstrators in an East Timor cemetery by the Indonesian Military at the beginning of this decade led Congress to ban U.S. taxpayer funded IMET training in 1992. Despite this strong indication by Congress to stop assistance to the Indonesian Military, the Department of Defense continues to provide assistance through the Joint Combined Exchange and Training program. Last September, I wrote Secretary of Defense Cohen requesting detailed information on the training of members of the Kopassus, the elite special forces division of the Indonesian military. The Kopassus is famous for its role as the ruthless ``enforcer'' of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor. Several months later, I received a response from Deputy Secretary John Hamre, describing the United States' continued training of the Indonesian military under another program--the JCET. While I recognize that Indonesia's participation in the JCET program is in compliance with U.S. law, I do not support any training of the Indonesian military by U.S. armed services. It is clear to me and several of my colleagues that the JCET program is the Pentagon's loophole to the ban on IMET. The amendment, which I was to offer with Representatives Nita Lowey, Patrick Kennedy and Chris Smith, would have sent a direct message to President Suharto that the flagrant abuse of power, unmitigated repression and complete disregard for fundamental human rights will not be tolerated. Because the moratorium would have lasted only for the fiscal year, it would have allowed Congress to reassess the merits of providing military training to Indonesia next year. I hope that we can address this problem later in the session, but I still believe it was an opportunity that this Congress should not have missed. This rule abrogates our responsibility to ensure that our national security policy embodies the very democratic principles it seeks to defend. I believe it is unfortunate and does not reflect well on this institution.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons for my support for the motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 2400, offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, the ranking Democratic member of the House Committee on Appropriations. These reasons include the following: As approved by the House, H.R. 2400 contained a provision to prevent a reduction in or the elimination of any current veterans benefit to provide ``savings'' needed to pay for or offset an increase in spending for highways and transit programs authorized by H.R. 2400. The language of H.R. 2400 as approved by the House and the intent of the House on this issue is not in doubt. Recently, the chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Arizona, Bob Stump, and I sent a letter to Speaker Gingrich, Minority Leader Gephardt and every House member of the Conference Committee on H.R. 2400. Twenty-two of our colleagues who are Members of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs joined us in sending those letters. I ask that the text of these letters be included in the Record as part of my statement. Our letters to Speaker Gingrich, Minority Leader Gephardt and every House member of the Conference Committee reaffirmed the provisions in H.R. 2400 as approved by the House which prevents a reduction in or the elimination of any current veterans benefit to provide ``savings'' needed to pay for highways and transit programs authorized by H.R. 2400. Additionally, as our letters note, measures relating to veterans benefits under the rules of the House are, generally, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, not the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I am sure the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure understands that the jurisdiction of that committee does not include veterans' matters. Our country is the most wealthy nation on the face of the planet. We enjoy liberties and freedoms enjoyed by few others and envied by most. It is our Nation's veterans to whom we are all indebted for the freedoms we enjoy and too often take for granted. While I strongly support the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1998, our Nation can pay for new roads without committing highway robbery of veterans benefits. In recent weeks, an aggressive print and radio advertising campaign by leading veterans groups has pleaded with Congress to not ``rob our veterans again!'' to offset major spending increases for highway and transportation programs. The concerns expressed by these veterans advocates are unfortunately all too real. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated that spending for veterans benefits will be reduced by $10.5 billion over the next 5 fiscal years by eliminating existing smoking-related disability benefits to veterans able to show they became addicted to nicotine while in the military. Terminating this benefit and using these ``savings'' to offset nonveteran major spending increases is, in plain terms, a money grab at the expense of veterans. And it stands a good chance of succeeding unless the Republican leadership takes action during negotiations over the long overdue highway bill in the coming days to prevent this daylight robbery. Congress should reject a transportation funding approach which effectively ends an existing veterans benefit. With the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] projecting a surplus of as much as $63 billion for this fiscal year--instead of the $15 billion projected when the House approved its version of the highway bill--it's simply not necessary to eliminate a veterans' benefits to provide much-needed funds for roads and bridges. If this daylight robbery is permitted to happen, sick and disabled veterans--unlike recipients of Social Security disability benefits-- would no longer be eligible for compensation benefits for nicotine addiction and resulting illnesses. This, despite the undeniable role our Government and tobacco companies have played facilitating--if not encouraging--veterans to smoke during their military service. Total cigarette sales soared in the 1940's. During what a 1949 Fortune magazine article called ``the war boom in cigarette demand,'' tobacco giant Philip Morris recorded record sales in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1945. Nearly one-third of its sales went to our Nation's Armed Forces. As many as 75 percent of our World War II veterans began smoking during their military service, a number perhaps not surprising given that cigarettes were routinely distributed free of charge to members of the Armed Forces as part of their ``C-rations.'' Military exchanges sold cigarettes at dramatically reduced prices. From the time of the Civil War until 1956, the Army was required by law to provide a cheap and nearly endless supply of tobacco to its enlisted men. During my own service as an enlisted Marine in the Vietnam-era, smoke breaks and ``smoke `em if you got `em'' was the way of military life. Given this backdrop, it's not hard to understand how many veterans began smoking and developed an addiction to nicotine during their military service. In my view, and in the view of many who served, they did so in large part because our Government and tobacco companies made cigarettes so accessible and easy to smoke. But while common sense and the current public debate over tobacco would suggest that our Government should own up to its responsibilities to American veterans on this issue, Washington politics has unnecessarily clouded this issue for some Members of Congress. In an era where most people are now willing to concede that the tobacco industry is at least partly to blame for marketing to vulnerable populations and for concealing the dangers of smoking from the public at large, some in Congress apparently believe America's veterans singularly had a unique ability to accurately foresee the consequences of their tobacco use. At a time when documents uncovered during recent tobacco litigation confirm long-held suspicions that for years big tobacco knowingly concealed the dangers of smoking from the public, the administration and some in Congress appear poised to take the hypocritical view that veterans--unlike other Americans--should have known better than to become addicted to nicotine during their military service. Veterans deserve the benefit of the doubt, not the short end of the stick, on this issue. The conferees on the highway bill should stick to House language which, as Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster (R-PA) says, ``does not touch veterans benefits.'' Veterans programs or benefits should not be used to offset spending increases in the highway bill. There are better ways to pave roads than to break the promises we as a nation have made to America's veterans.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3603, a bill to authorize VA's major medical construction and lease projects for fiscal year 1999. I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the Chairman of the Committee, for supporting a completely bipartisan process. The projects VA identified as the highest priorities comprise those we recommended for funding for fiscal year 1999. I believe the bill will allow VA to fund projects that are consistent with VA's efforts to ensure patient safety and accommodate more care on an outpatient basis. We have been cautious stewards, and the projects authorized in this bill are of vital importance to VA and the veterans that rely on them for their care. I recommend support for adoption of the major medical construction projects contained in H.R. 3603, as amended; and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. While VA has significantly reduced its reliance on outpatient bed care, VA providers will continue in the foreseeable future to need beds in a variety of settings. Remaining beds must be housed in modern, safe and accessible facilities.Two projects redress systemic, seismic problems in the San Juan, Puerto Rico and Long Beach, California facilities and both were requested by the Administration. Other selected projects allow VA to continue moving more expensive hospital bed care to outpatient care settings. Some projects consolidate VA's activities and allow it to become more cost effective. In addition, the Committee is authorizing funds for three major leases for outpatient facilities. These leases will allow VA to take advantage of the community's excess capacity and become more accessible to its users. These projects are not only consistent with recent trends in VA health care, they are consistent with the direction of modern medicine.

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. EVANS

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

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

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 3039, the Veterans Housing Opportunities Act of 1998. This bill will furnish yet another tool to meet the housing and supportive service needs of homeless veterans. Many of these men and women, who once served their country with honor, can return to society as productive citizens if they are provided with an appropriate continuum of care. The program established under H.R. 3039 will provide the sanctuary, support and services necessary to achieve this goal. I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) for his help in the development of this legislation. I also want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jack Quinn), and the ranking Democrat on the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bob Filner), for their hard work on these issues. Their cooperative bipartisan efforts have resulted in a bill that is good for the veterans of this country. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3039. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, for years veterans who rely on the VA for their health care have run into a brick wall when they sought reimbursement from VA for emergency health care received from a non-VA provider. Even when veterans took the time to contact VA when a medical emergency arose and were directed by VA to seek emergency care from the closest health care provider, they have been routinely denied reimbursement by VA for the cost of the emergency health care they needed and received from a non-VA provider. The Veterans' Access to Emergency Health Care Act of 1998 will provide veterans access to emergency services when and where the need arises. It will solve a long-standing problem--reimbursement from VA-- that has bedeviled veterans who needed and received emergency health care when they were needed from a non-VA provider. The Veterans' Access to Emergency Health Care Act of 1998 will also make it possible for the Department of Veterans Affairs to comply with the Consumer Bill of Rights, which President Clinton has directed every Federal agency that administers or manages health plans to adopt. VA has reported that it will largely be able to comply with the Consumer Bill of Rights through administrative action, but legislation will be required to provide veterans the access to emergency services. Currently, only veterans who are on VA property when an emergency occurs receive reimbursement from VA for contract emergency care furnished by a non-VA provider. VA has limited emergency care capabilities and must refer much of its emergent care to other providers. The Consumer Bill of Rights, developed by a Presidential Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry, establishes eight basic rights for consumers. In addition to access to emergency services, these rights include: Accurate information about health plans; a choice of providers and plans; participation in treatment decisions; nondiscrimination; the protection of their confidential medical information; and a fair and efficient process for complaining about and/or appealing a medical decision; and responsibility for one's own health. VA has reported it will be able to largely comply with the Consumer Bill of Rights through administrative action, but legislation will be required to provide veterans the access to emergency services. The Veterans' Access to Emergency Health Care Act of 1998 will provide veterans access to emergency services when and where the need arises. Providing veterans who rely on VA for health care access to emergency services when the need arises is long overdue. This legislation should be quickly passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, America has a sacred trust to honor the sacrifices made by our veterans--the men and women whose military service, both in wartime and in times of peace, has kept us free and strong. One of the most important and symbolic ways our country has historically recognized honorable military service is by providing military honors at veterans' funerals. Traditionally, the Department of Defense (DOD) has provided the honor guard details. Unfortunately, DOD has determined that, because of the downsizing of America's Armed Forces, this type of assistance can no longer be provided. I believe this is a mistake and that, in the zeal to cut costs and squeeze savings at every possible opportunity, appreciation has been lost for the significance and meaning associated with paying final tribute to a veteran's military service. Those who have attended a funeral with full military honors remember it as a uniquely profound and moving experience--an experience that vividly expresses our nation's gratitude to those whose sacrifices have protected and preserved our liberty and freedom. I have also been told by the loved ones of deceased veterans that the beauty and solemnity of the military funeral, the report of the rifle salute, the haunting sound of Taps, provided them extraordinary comfort and consolation. A military funeral also reinforces a principle that is important for all Americans; that our nation must never forget our veterans' service, sacrifice, and love of country. As we strive to recruit and retain motivated men and women for military service, it is important that we remind our society that duty and sacrifice must always be remembered and honored. Because of the symbolic importance of military funerals, many of the Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) have attempted to provide honor guards, and we should all commend and thank them for their dedication and commitment. However, in spite of their efforts, limited resources have made it impossible for them to fulfill the requests for their services. Additionally, many VSO members have told me that they simply cannot perform the ceremonies with the military bearing of military service personnel. I believe that our nation can--and must--do better. Our military must recognize and honor the sacrifices made by our citizen-soldiers. Accordingly, I am today introducing the Veterans Burials Rights Act of 1998, legislation that requires DOD, upon request, to provide military honor guards for veterans' funerals. Additionally, my bill would require that the honor guards include no fewer than five members of the armed forces, including a bugler. Representative Sue Kelly from New York is the principal co-sponsor of my legislation, which is the companion bill to S. 1825, introduced on March 25, 1998 by Senator Patty Murray. Senator Murray has been a true leader on veterans' issues and has shown great commitment in pushing for recognition of their accomplishments and needs. She should be applauded for her authorship of the legislation as well as her work to bring this issue to the attention of our nation. I hope we will act quickly on this legislation so that we can once again properly honor the sacrifice and service of our deceased veterans. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important effort.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Disabled Veterans' Special Housing Improvements Act of 1998. This legislation will provide our most severely disabled veterans with a much needed increase in the amount of the one-time grant they may receive in order to obtain or adapt special housing to meet their unique needs. Only a small number of service-connected veterans are so disabled that they qualify to receive a grant to obtain suitable housing. Most are required to use a wheelchair for mobility. During the past ten years, the purchasing power of this grant has been allowed to erode by almost one-third. The Disabled Veterans' Special Housing Improvements Act of 1998 was prompted by a call to my office from a severely disabled veteran. This veteran reported that while he had been approved for a one-time grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs to modify his home to meet the requirements of his service-connected disabilities, the cost of the needed adaptations far exceeded the amount of the grant. There was a simple reason for this fact. The grant amount for veterans which had been regularly increased between 1969 and 1988 has been frozen since 1988. The grant available under this program amount is limited to 50% of the actual cost of the modifications or purchase. Nonetheless, almost 95% of the veterans who qualify for this benefit receive the maximum grant. The legislation I am introducing today makes up for years of neglect. It will restore the purchasing power of the grant to reflect the current cost of housing. In order to avoid repeating the neglect of the past ten years, the legislation will also index the grant to the cost of new construction in future years. In addition, this legislation has been recommended by the Independent Budget and the many veterans service organizations who participate in preparing that document. Our most severely disabled veterans have earned the right to live in a safe, secure home, specially adapted to meet their needs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendment to H.R. 2400 which expresses the Sense of Congress that offsets to spending above the Congressional Budget Office baseline, as described in section 1001 of the bill, should not be taken from veterans programs. This amendment will be considered as adopted upon approval of the rule governing consideration of H.R. 2400. This important amendment makes it clear that offsets for increases in spending authorized by the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act should not include any provision making a change in programs or benefits administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. There seems to be a widespread misconception about restricting or denying a benefit to which a qualifying veteran is entitled to receive as a means of finding ``savings'' to offset the costs of other legislation. This misconception is seductively simple--if a veteran is not now in receipt of an entitlement which he or she would qualify to receive if they had applied for this benefit, then eliminating this benefit does that veteran no harm. Would the Members of the House and Senate who are eligible for, but not yet in receipt of, a retirement pension believe they would not be harmed if their anticipated retirement benefit was reduced or eliminated because they had not yet applied to receive it? There would be shrieks and howls about such an injustice. We would be told the Members had ``earned'' their pension. Veterans also have earned the benefits which they are entitled to receive. Let me also make it clear that I strongly support passage of H.R. 2400. We clearly need to have a modern, efficient and reliable transportation infrastructure. This has always been important and is certainly no less important today with the increasing globalization of the economy and economic competition. We can do this, however, while continuing to honor our commitments to veterans.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Disabled Veterans' Automobile Assistance Improvement Act of 1998. Severely disabled veterans are eligible for a grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide or assist in providing an automobile or other conveyance. The original intent of this program was to provide a grant which would enable a veteran to actually purchase a motor vehicle. The grant currently available is totally insufficient for that purpose. In 1971, the average cost of a new car was $3,742 and the VA grant amount was $2,800. In 1974, the average cost of a new car was $4,440 and the VA grant was raised to $3,300. By 1988, the average cost of a new car had increased to $14,065 and the VA grant had increased to $5,500. Today, the average cost of a new car is $20,647, but the VA grant remains limited to $5,500. These figures dramatically demonstrate the erosion of a benefit which is designed to assist disabled veterans in the purchase of a motor vehicle. The Disabled Veterans' Automobile Assistance Improvement Act of 1998 will enable disabled veterans to qualify for a grant which will be increased to make up for the increased cost of automobiles over the last ten years and will index these amounts for future inflation. Our severely disabled veterans need assistance with the cost of motor vehicles which, due to the extent of the veterans' service-connected disabilities, frequently cost far more than the average cost of an automobile. This legislation will provide that assistance and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to extend the period that Gulf War veterans with undiagnosed illnesses will be able to receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care. This measure will extend the authority for VA to provide treatment from December 31, 1998 until December 31, 2001. This extension makes the timeline for health care eligibility consistent with the presumptive period the Secretary of Veterans Affairs defined for compensation for disabilities due to undiagnosed illnesses. More than a year ago, I encouraged VA to extend the presumptive period for compensation because no one could explain why so many veterans had health care problems following their military service in the Persian Gulf. Former VA Secretary Jesse Brown justified the extension of the presumptive period by stating that no one knows why so many veterans are still sick--seven years after serving in the Southwest Asian theater. Of the almost 700,000 individuals who served in the Persian Gulf, about 65,000 veterans have signed onto the VA's Persian Gulf Registry and about 19,000 have registered for DOD's Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Program. VA's latest Gulf War Veteran's Statistics indicate that, of those veterans on VA's registry, about 11% have undiagnosed illnesses. In response to the continuing health care problems reported by these veterans, Congress enacted legislation last year to require VA to develop innovative treatment programs for these veterans and to document the effectiveness of these programs in treating veterans. I believe the large number of veterans still suffering demonstrates the need for continuing to provide VA health care services for undiagnosed illnesses. The Persian Gulf Veterans Health Care Extension Act of 1998 follows my introduction of H.R. 3279, the Persian Gulf Veterans Act of 1998. H.R. 3279 establishes a permanent process for awarding compensation for conditions presumed to be service-connected by virtue of Gulf War service. It also addresses the need for research in many areas, including defining effective health care treatments for those who have vague or undiagnosed symptoms and investigating emerging technologies to asses exposure to various hazards and agents. The legislation would also require VA and DOD to develop information resources, and mandate VA and DOD to document their outreach programs for veterans and active duty military members. Our nation must continued to respond to Persian Gulf veterans' need for a complete range of benefits. Veterans still want to know why they are sick, but also need health care that can alleviate their pain and compensation to ensure that the effects of their illnesses do not impoverish them and their families. Continuing VA's authority to deliver health care benefits for conditions resulting from undiagnosed illnesses is critical to ensuring that Persian Gulf veterans get the services they still need. It is essential to continue to provide health care treatment to veterans as we continue to seek answers about the cause of their conditions.

Mr. EVANS

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

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), a very able member of our committee.