Lane Evans

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, on June 7, 1945, Gen. George S. Patton, Jr., while eulogizing our American World War II dead, reminded our grieving Nation: ``It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.'' General Patton's words should support and sustain us today as we remember our colleague, Frank Tejeda. Rather than mourning Frank's too-early death, let us thank God for his life--let us thank God we had the opportunity, and the privilege, to know and work with this extraordinary man. Frank was a favorite in this House. A genuinely friendly, decent, kind, and quiet man, his participation in a hearing or meeting guaranteed civility and tolerance. When he spoke, others leaned in so they could hear his words. I firmly believe that Frank's notable courtesy and obvious concern and regard for the views of others were the results of a life challenge--as a young man growing up in southside San Antonio--as a highly decorated marine who fought and was wounded in the jungles of Vietnam--as a student at three of our country's most highly respected centers of learning and intellectual challenge--the University of California at Berkeley, Harvard, and Yale. As a fellow member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I know that Frank's thoughtful, informed comments and constructive participation were highly regarded. He was among the first to sound the alarm regarding Persian Gulf war syndrome. He championed improvements in the Montgomery GI Bill. He fought to ensure that the many veterans in San Antonio were well cared for and that the Audie Murphy VA Hospital in San Antonio provided only the finest health care. I was also privileged to serve with Frank on the Committee on National Security where his faithful and effective participation demonstrated his commitment to the members of our Armed Forces and a strong national defense. All of us considered Frank a good friend and colleague. Our admiration, however, grew into a real sense of awe as we watched him literally wage the battle of his lifetime--a fight he carried on with enormous courage and dignity. None of us will ever forget the Honorable Frank Tejeda--or the special grace with which he lived his life. Our deepest sympathy goes to Frank's beloved family, his loyal and devoted staff, and the residents of the 28th Congressional District of Texas, whom Frank represented so ably and with great diligence. Please know that we in this House are anxious to help in any way possible during the coming difficult months. Let us all thank God for the life of Frank Tejeda.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to address an injustice that should be corrected at our earliest possible opportunity--the poor treatment of our Nation's atomic veterans. There can be no question that atomic veterans were not adequately informed of the dangers of ionizing radiation and were injured as a result. Many of these men and women have paid for their dedication and bravery with their health and some with their lives. We owe it to them to see that they are not forgotten and that they receive the compensation for all of the illnesses that were incurred because of their service to our Nation. My legislation is but another step in ensuring that we fulfill our duty to them. Recent developments have made a clear case for providing relief to these vets. The final report of the President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experimentation more or less concluded that our Government has failed these brave men and women. The recommendations of the committee mirrored many of the concerns that the atomic veterans groups have had for years: that the list of presumptive diseases contained in law is inadequate, that the standard of proof to meet administrative claims is often impossible to meet, and that these statutes are limited and inequitable in their coverage. I believe that Congress must provide the necessary leadership to ensure that these veterans' needs are met. My legislation is based on the precedent set by the Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal Act, which provides relief for a number of presumptive diseases. Currently, Marshall Islanders receive compensation if they exhibit one or more of the 27 illnesses presumed radiogenic in nature. My legislation would ensure that all of the radiogenic illnesses that Marshall Islanders are compensated for are also on the presumptive list for our Nation's vets. Specifically, it would add bone cancer, cancer of the colon, nonmalignant thyroid nodular disease, parathyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, brain and central nervous system tumors, unexplained bone marrow failure and meningioma to the presumptive list. This legislation will ensure that atomic veterans are treated properly, not as second-class citizens. It will also ensure that our Nation's policy on addressing the damage done by our Nation's nuclear weapons program is consistent. The least we can do is to make sure that veterans receive compensation for illnesses already determined by our Government to be linked to exposure to ionizing radiation. I urge my colleagues to sponsor this long-overdue legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things in this bill. One of the most important things is the fact that we compensate and provide health care benefits for children of Agent Orange-exposed Vietnam veterans. I believe that these children are as much veterans of the war as any other person that served or who was wounded during time of war. Through no choice of their own, they lost their health in service to our country. Because of this, they face a lifetime of extensive medical care. The provision in this conference bill fulfills the duty we owe to them and any other citizen that has sacrificed their health in defense of our Nation. We urge our colleagues to support the conference report. Mr. Speaker, the VA-HUD bill is one of the most important bills we consider in ensuring our Nation's commitment to our veterans. This year, it takes on even greater significance, since for the first time it provides compensation and health care to the children of agent orange-exposed Vietnam veterans who suffer from spina bifida. Earlier this year, the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine found that there is limited/suggestive evidence of an association between agent orange exposure to vets and the occurrence of Spina Bifida in their children. The report confirmed what Vietnam vets knew all along--that agent orange has and will continue to exact a high price on themselves and their families. I believe these children deserve the same treatment as if they had been wounded or served during time of war. Through no choice of their own, they lost their health in the service of our Nation. Because of this, they face a lifetime of extensive medical care. The provision in the conference report fulfills a duty we have to them and any other citizen who has sacrificed in the defense of our nation. There are many to thank for their hard work on this matter: Senator Daschle for his leadership on this and so many other issues concerning the tragedy of agent orange; The administration, especially VA Secretary Jesse Brown for proposing and closely coordinating the legislation; the Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign War for their strong advocacy; and the disabilities community, such as the Spina Bifida Association of America, the National Association of Veteran Family Service Organizations and the American Association of University Affiliated Programs for Persons with Developmental Disabilities for their grassroots efforts. In particular, I would like to thank the ranking minority member, Mr. Stokes for his hard work and diligence. Without his perseverance, we may have never achieved success. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Agent Orange Benefits Act of 1996. The legislation provides necessary medical care and compensation to a new class of citizens who have sacrificed their health in the defense of our Nation--the children of agent orange- exposed Vietnam veterans who were born with Spina Bifida. The legislation, proposed by the administration after close coordination with veterans services organizations and the disabilities community, is the result of a process set into place by the Agent Orange Act of 1991. The act established the process in which the National Academy of Sciences' [NAS] Institute of Medicine [IOM] issues reports every 2 years on the existing scientific evidence relating to Vietnam veterans' exposure to agent orange. The IOM's latest report confirmed what Vietnam veterans have known all along--that agent orange has and will continue to exact a high price on themselves and their families. The report specifically found that there is limited suggestive evidence of an association between agent orange exposure to vets and the occurrence of spina bifida in their children. The bill I am introducing today is consistent with legislative action we have taken in the past with respect to veterans who suffered from conditions in the ``second tier'' of the NAS report. As with previous legislative relief we have granted veterans, my bill ensures that the VA has the authority to provide health care and appropriate compensation. Specifically, the bill gives the Secretary of the VA the authority to provide the extensive medical help needed by children suffering from spina bifida, including important case management services. The bill also gives the Secretary the flexibility to contract for care from private sources to ensure that appropriate medical services are provided. I applaud the administration's quick and decisive movement on this issue. In particular, Secretary Brown should be congratulated for the strong action he took in ensuring that the administration proposed comprehensive legislation that guarantees that these children will be properly cared for and compensated. I hope that we can take quick action on this legislation. The bottom line is that we have sick children who have paid the price because of their father's service to our Nation. They need and deserve the best that our nation can give them. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and to commend Chairman Stump, Subcommittee Chairman Terry Everett, and all of the members who have supported providing adequate compensation to veterans with service-connected disabilities and to spouses of veterans who die of service-connected causes. This legislation which we are considering today is a small token of our esteem for those who left the service with disabilities. It provides for an increase estimated to be 2.8 percent for veterans drawing disability compensation as well as the spouses of veterans who die of a service-connected cause. There are other measures that we will consider today that make improvements in veterans programs, but none will touch as many lives as this legislation. I urge my colleagues to pass this far-reaching and vital legislation.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Stump and Mr. Everett have already summarized the bills, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to particular portions of this bill that should help resolve veterans' claims for benefits in a more timely and complete manner. On April 7, 1995, I introduced the veterans programs amendments of 1995, H.R. 1482. I am pleased that four of the issues which that bill addressed are contained in modified or improved form in this bill. I want to express my thanks to the subcommittee chairman, Terry Everett, for his hard work and his collegiality during the subcommittee's work this year. H.R. 3673 would establish a pilot program for VBA to contract with competent medical authorities for examination of veterans applying for VA disability benefits. I included this provision in H.R. 1482 after reading the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on the Adjudication of Claims, which found that in some instances, VA medical centers were not responsive to VBA requirements for thorough medical exams. By giving VA regional offices the authority, on a pilot basis, to choose someone other than an unresponsive VA medical center for its medical examinations, we hope to improve the quality and timeliness of compensation and pension examinations. This bill includes a provision that will make it easier for VA to award pension benefits to veterans who are 65 years of age or older and who are patients in nursing homes. It is both common sense and humane to presume that such individuals are permanently and totally disabled; the result of this will be less time spent trying to establish the obvious and more time spent on deciding claims in a timely manner. H.R. 3673 also includes a provision that would authorize the American Battle Monuments Commission [ABMC], which maintains cemeteries in foreign nations containing the remains of American service members, to assume responsibility for private memorials erected by American citizens which commemorate the service of American fighting units overseas. This provision would authorize ABMC to accept responsibility for upkeep of these memorials and to accept private contributions to defray the cost of the maintenance and upkeep. I am advised that several of these private memorial groups have expressed an interest in turning over their memorials to an agency which will ensure their upkeep, and I am pleased that this could be done under this legislation at no additional cost to the taxpayer. Finally, I should mention a provision included in this measure which will help to defray the burial costs of certain veterans who die in State nursing homes. VA helps to defray the burial costs of veterans who die in VA hospitals and nursing homes, and since State veteran homes are an essential part of the VA's extended care capability, it only makes sense to offer this same assistance to the families of veterans who die in State nursing homes. I want to single out the commander of the Iowa Veterans Nursing Home, Mr. Jack Dack, for bringing this need to our attention. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone who has been involved, including the chairman of the full committee and our ranking member, for their work today.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, the extension of priority care for veterans who were exposed to agent orange reflects the compromise reached in the Veterans' Affairs Committee last year on this issue. I must admit that I was not completely satisfied with the legislation and I still have reservations. Specifically, I still believe that we should be covering all of the categories in the Agent Orange Act of 1991. However, I still believe, as I did last year, that this is a solid compromise which will ensure that the health care needs of deserving Vietnam veterans will be met. The recent release of the Institute of Medicine's report on agent orange only reaffirms that we must continue to honor the health care needs of our Vietnam veterans. I would again like to thank Chairman Stump, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Montgomery for their efforts last year to work out legislation which I feel protects the rights of veterans. The rest of legislation, which also provides for our Persian Gulf war and atomic veterans, is right on target and should be supported by all of my colleagues.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank all those Members, particularly the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], for sponsoring the provision to authorize funds for the pro bono legal assistance program. The veterans who have been awarded benefits by the Court of Veterans Appeals as a result of the legal assistance provided by the program fully understand the importance of this program and the need for this program in the future to be available to veterans who need it. I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona, Chairman Stump, the gentleman from Indiana, Subcommittee Chairman Buyer and the gentleman from Alabama, Subcommittee Chairman Everett, as well as the gentleman from Mississippi, Ranking Member Sonny Montgomery and the gentleman from California, Bob Filner, for all their hard work on this legislation. This bill makes a number of enhancements to the Montgomery GI bill, a program I have been pleased to name. We had an amendment in the committee to name it the Montgomery GI bill, and I was pleased to offer that amendment. By providing an opportunity for more service members to enroll in the Montgomery GI bill, we increase the educational opportunities for deserving Americans, and by increasing the benefit level wherever we can we signify our commitment to the education needs of our veterans and service members. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I will have another opportunity on this floor to express my thoughts about my colleague the gentleman from Mississippi, Congressman Sonny Montgomery. I believe every veteran in this country owes the gentleman a debt of gratitude for his work and commitment to serving veterans. Through his work, particularly on establishing the GI bill program, he has left a legacy that will be long remembered. He has earned the title ``Mr. Veteran.'' The gentleman has been a faithful guardian and protector of the veterans of this Nation, and we will miss him very much. I want to personally offer my appreciation for his many years of service on the Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Committee on National Security and to wish him the very best in the future.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, this bill makes changes in the insurance programs that are requested by the administration. The committee has examined these changes and finds they will enhance the usefulness of the insurance programs and put them on a firmer financial footing. One provision of great importance to me is a measure ensuring that the Education Service of the Department of Veterans Affairs continues to be housed in the District of Columbia at the VA central office. If this office were to be moved, it could jeopardize management and policy decisions affecting the Montgomery GI bill. Mr. Speaker, I offered the amendment to name the GI bill after Sonny Montgomery. I do not want to see it undermined, and that is why I very much appreciate again the leadership of Chairman Stump and the gentleman from Alabama, Terry Everett, on this matter today.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, to the gentleman from Arizona, Bob Stump, and the gentleman from Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery. Mr. Speaker, both bills received extensive scrutiny at a subcommittee hearing last October. They include measures recommended by the administration and members of the Committee on Veteran's Affairs. H.R. 1483 has received strong support from the Disabled American Veterans and other veterans organizations. Mr. Speaker, there has been some concern expressed about the possible effect that this bill may have on the backlog of appeals at the Board of Veterans' Appeals. I met with BVA Chairman Cragin and we discussed the Administration's concern about this possibility. While I do not believe that this legislation will have any appreciable effect on the BVA backlog, I want to reflect several important matters concerning this bill. First, since veterans already have the right to raise a claim of clear and unmistakable error before the regional office, any increase in the BVA backlog should be minimal. Veterans have long had this right, and it does not appear to cause unusual or time-wasting problems today. Second, the Board may wish to consider the adoption of procedural rules to make consideration of appeals raising such issues less burdensome, much as the Court of Veterans Appeals did in Russell versus Principi and Fugo versus Brown. In these cases, the Court noted that a simple claim of CUE, or a ``broad-brush allegation'' that previous decisions were wrong, is not sufficient to constitute CUE. If a claimant-appellant wishes to reasonably raise CUE there must be some degree of specificity as to what the alleged error is and . . . persuasive reasons must be given as to why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error. Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40, 44 (1993). It would appear that the Board could propose pleading standards consistent with this statement which would make adjudication of non- meritorious CUE claims easier. However, an appellate system which would tolerate and let stand decisions so patently wrong as to meet the demanding standard of being clearly and unmistakably erroneous is a system not worthy of continued respect. The very essence of a system of appellate and judicial review cries out for correction of ``clear and unmistakable error'', no matter when the error occurred or how much effort it takes to sift meritorious claims from all others. I believe that this is why all of the veterans service organizations support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act which would restore our Nation's transportation trust funds to their original purpose of serving the people. This bill would also restore the trust of the American taxpayer who has contributed billions of dollars in taxes and user fees to maintain this country's transportation infrastructure. We have certainly abused this trust by allowing our Nation's roads, trains, airways, and waterways to deteriorate. Our transportation infrastructure is in desperate need of the money that will be freed by removing the trust fund off budget. According to a recent Department of Transportation report, approximately 30 percent of the interstate pavement on our highways is in poor condition. In fact, there are about $360 billion in unmet highway and bridge needs in this country. Because of fiscal constraints, the Centennial Bridge in Rock Island County, IL, has fallen into severe disrepair. However, if these trust fund dollars are released for the purposes intended, the bridge authority will be able to make infrastructural improvements needed to keep this major crossing of the Mississippi River safe and viable for years to come. I also share the outrage of many of my constituents about last year's drastic cuts in transit funding. Hard-working Americans have paid their fair share to help maintain healthy mass transit systems. Mass transit is the lifeblood of our cities and our suburban and rural communities. It provides a way to work for millions of middle- and low-income Americans. We cannot continue to jeopardize their livelihoods by using these transit dollars for other unintended purposes. We cannot continue to use the billions of dollars accrued in the transportation trust funds used to mask the true size of the deficit at the expense of deteriorating roads, bridges, and tunnels, and failing bus terminals and airports. The American people have suffered long enough. The time has come to allow these funds to rejuvenate our decaying infrastructure. We need to maintain a safe, efficient, and cost effective transportation infrastructure. This vote presents us the opportunity to meet critical highway and transit needs with honesty and accountability. I urge my colleagues to restore the faith the American people have given us by supporting this Truth In Budgeting Act.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, the carnage wreaked on innocent civilians by antipersonnel landmines has become well-known. It is estimate that over 2,000 innocent men, women, and children are killed or maimed each year by these hideous and barbaric devices. Yet, nothing has brought the landmine crisis home to the American public until we contemplated sending our own young soldiers to the minefields of Bosnia. According to the United Nations, there are over 8 million landmines in Bosnia alone. One of them recently killed a young sergeant. He was the first American killed in the former Yugoslavia. According to the experts, he might not be the last. Landmines potentially pose the largest threat to our troops in Bosnia. However, the Department of Defense has been at odds with international efforts to eliminate them. For too long, we have only heard from the Pentagon of the benefits of these weapons to our forces. The cost of antipersonnel (AP) landmines to our fighting men and women has too often been ignored until we have to fight and face them. In Vietnam, a third of our casualties came from landmines. They will continue to take their awful toll in future conflicts on our soldiers and innocent men, women, and children, until the international community decides to do something about the problem. Our Nation could be leading the charge to eliminate these weapons. Unfortunately, there has not been a serious effort to seek a ban on the use of these weapons. This has led to marginal results that forced the participants, out of embarrassment, to postpone the conclusion of the review conference until later this spring. Without our leadership, a ban on AP landmines will not happen. This fall, Congress took a big step in asserting this leadership by passing a one-year moratorium on the use of AP landmines. And now the military is finally taking a hard look at the landmine crisis. According to an article in Sunday's New York Times, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili has ordered a review of the Pentagon's longstanding opposition to a ban on the use of landmines. I applaud General Shalikashvili for his review of this issue. He is obviously listening to the many American combat vets, both officer and enlisted, who know how much these weapons have cost us in American lives and limbs compared to their limited military value. In a speech before the United Nations just over a year ago, President Clinton stated our Nation's goal of a ban on antipersonnel landmines. I hope that General Shalikashvili's review, along with the progress being made internationally, will bring this goal closer to realization. Twenty-two nations now support a ban on these weapons. U.S. leadership, in the form of a call for an immediate ban, could make this a reality. The prestige of the President, along with the support of our Department of Defense, can move nations. This goal is achievable. Considering the terrible toll antipersonnel landmines are taking on civilians and soldiers, we must act now.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, as others have pointed out, this bill is stacked with weapons that the Pentagon does not need or want, and the cost of these unwanted weapons will threaten more pressing priorities, such as decent pay, sufficient O&M funding, and a capable civilian work force. This bill will also undermine our leadership on anti-personnel land mines. The Senate overwhelmingly approved an amendment to enact a 1- year moratorium on the United States of AP land mines, but in this conference the House would sabotage that with an amendment that would require DOD certification before the amendment went into effect. This would hurt our leadership in the next session of the review conference of the 1980 land mines protocol. Our previous leadership was based on a congressionally approved export moratorium which was helpful in bringing nations to the table. The language in this conference will take that progress back. In addition, without a hearing at all, the Republican leadership stripped language that would have given more flexibility to DOD in administering the demining grants and providing demining equipment to other countries. This only means more innocent women, men, and children will be killed or injured by land mines. Former U.S. Marine Corps Commandant Al Gray has stated, ``We kill more Americans with our mines than we do anyone else. We have never killed many enemies with mines.'' This is clearly an irresponsible bill for many reasons, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it, and thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose sending ground troops to Bosnia and support this resolution and hope that my colleagues will also. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the decision to send ground forces to Bosnia because it will put our soldiers in the middle of an ethnic powderkeg that could explode again at any moment. Neither the Dayton Agreement nor military force can erase the centuries of ethnic unrest and dissension that has fueled this conflict. This hatred will not cease. Even as the warring parties prepare for the implementation of the agreement, different factions have burned and looted property that will be turned back to their opponents. Can we expect the peace to last considering this level of animosity or the history of the region? This leads me to believe that this agreement will unravel. If it does, our soldiers will be in the middle of the conflict. But even if it does last, this operation is a risky proposition. Our soldiers will face the dangers posed by some 6 million landmines, many of them scattered indiscriminately throughout the unforgiving terrain of the region. And numerous armed terrorist groups, who may not be easily controlled by the signers of the agreement, may attack our forces for their own political gains. Considering the history of the region and the many threats our soldiers face, I cannot support this mission. I urge my colleagues to vote for the resolution.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce legislation to ensure that U.S. Federal contractors comply with the laws that protect working men and women from unfair management practices and unsafe conditions in the workplace. Every year, the Federal Government awards billions of dollars in contracts to corporate America. While these recipients provide jobs to local areas, some also violate their employees' right to bargain collectively, organize, and work in safe environment. A recent Government Accounting Office [GAO] report cited that 13 percent of the fiscal year 1993 contracts went to 80 violators of the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA]. Six of those violators were among the largest Federal contractors, ranking among the top 20 firms receiving Federal contract dollars. Some of the most egregious violations include interrogating workers about union membership, promising workers a pay raise if they oust the union, increasing benefits to nonunion employees, threatening workers with discharge because of their union activity, and threatening to withhold a wage increase because workers selected the union as their collective bargaining representative. Federal contractors who violate Occupational Safety and Health Act [OSHA] standards also continue to receive billions of dollars in contracts. A February 6, 1995 Wall Street Journal article cited that of 50 public companies with the largest Federal awards in fiscal 1993. 70 percent were cited by OSHA for a total of more than 1,100 willful or repeated safety violations in the previous 5 fiscal years. At a time when more than 55,000 Americans die on the job each year, we cannot afford to conduct business with contractors who willfully [[Page E 2301]] jeopardize the lives of their workers for the sake of the bottom line. While big business, in the face of record profits, continues to ignore its responsibility to its workers and U.S. law, we cannot turn our backs on the hard working men and women of this country. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to sponsor both pieces of legislation which will debar companies from receiving Federal contracts if a company demonstrates ``a clear pattern and practice'' of violating the NLRA and OSHA respectively. These bills are steps toward improving compliance and ensuring that the Federal Government does not subsidize egregious labor and workplace safety standards.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget will destroy economic opportunity for millions of hard working men and women. They have made a choice to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, students, veterans, and the working poor. They speak of sacrifice and responsibility, yet they are forcing low- and middle-income Americans to shoulder this burden while they give the wealthy and corporate America over $245 billion in tax breaks. I have introduced legislation that would reduce the deficit by closing loopholes that the wealthy and corporate America use to dodge their responsibility of paying taxes and reducing the deficit. While my bill eliminates more than $6 billion in tax loopholes that allow corporations to manipulate the foreign tax credit system, the Republicans choose to rob our children by slashing school lunch programs by the same $6 billion. While my bill closes more than $1.6 billion in tax loopholes that give foreign investors complete capital gains exemptions and interest- free bonds, the majority cheats students of a college education by slashing direct lending for student loans by $1.6 billion. While my bill closes more than $23 billion in tax breaks that allow multinationals to increase profits by decreasing their U.S. tax liability, the majority slashes the same amount from the earned income tax credit, seizing any opportunity from working families to stay off welfare. We need balanced judgment in cutting spending wisely. But we cannot do that when the only choice before us is to leave loopholes for multinationals virtually untouched and economic opportunity for millions of Americans out of reach.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, do not let anyone fool you. This proposal is not about saving Medicare, it is about giving tax breaks to businesses and wealthy Americans. It pays for a $245 billion tax break for the rich by breaking seniors backs. It makes health care less accessible and more expensive. It will close hospitals and other health facilities. And it will cost thousands of Americans their jobs. The Republican proposal cuts $270 billion from Medicare and deprives millions of seniors health care when they need it the most. It will force our parents and grandparents to choose between medical care, food, and shelter. It will force hospitals and providers around the Nation to curtail services or close for good. It will roll back efforts to crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse. It will lead to lower the quality of care, increase patient abuse, and cost the Medicare program over $1 billion. These cuts are cruel. The deficit should not be lowered at the expense of the elderly. Seniors should not have to suffer in order to give tax breaks to the rich. For over 30 years, Medicare has protected the health and financial security of millions of Americans. These men and women did not work for decades and pay their taxes just to have the rug pulled out from under them as they prepared to retire. The Republican proposal would do just that. It would decrease the value of seniors' savings and seriously drop their quality of life. Seniors deserve more respect than this. They should be able to enjoy their later years. They should not worry about whether they can afford health care. Thousands of my constituents have told me to oppose the Republican proposal. They do not want to pay more for less. They do not want to give a $245 billion tax cut to wealthy Americans. They know that this proposal will hurt them, their families, and the country. I oppose this bill and ask you to do so as well.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution of disapproval. I must do this because I am deeply disturbed by the base closure process. In the rush to close installations there has been a failure to analyze all of the facts carefully. This is obvious in the recommendations made by the Commission concerning the Savanna Army Depot Activity and the O'Hare Reserve Station. In the case of the Savanna Army Depot Activity, the Commission ignored a number of important factors. For example, closing the installation would result in the loss of important and hard-to- replicate capabilities, increase costs above the Army estimate to close the base and move its functions, and reduce ammo storage capability below critical military needs. For instance, the Commission failed to consider that Savanna is one of the most efficient facilities in the Army. During Desert Storm, Savanna had the highest outloading rate of any depot. It is also one of the few with adequate rail service to shipping centers. These national assets would be hard to replace in a nationwide mobilization. In addition, the estimate of the cost of closing Savanna and relocating the U.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center and School [USADACS] is too low. DOD stated that it would cost $38 million to close the installation and relocate functions. However, the Savanna Army Depot Realignment Task Force estimates that the cost of closing the facility and moving the school is much higher--as much as $88 million. This includes new construction that will have to take place at McAlester to complete the move. Even more importantly, the decision to close ammunition storage facilities failed to take into account storage needs. The Army's 1993 Wholesale Ammunition Stockpile Program study indicated that even with 11 depots, as much as 6 million square feet of outside storage will be needed to match our Nation's future ammunition stockpile. This could indicate that the ammunition study is flawed. Because of this decision, we may not have enough space to meet future storage needs. Our ammunition depots are a national asset that will be needed to meet future mobilization needs. The Commission's recommendation will mean the loss of an important part of this irreplaceable asset. Regarding the Commission's recommendation on the O'Hare Air Reserve Station, I am deeply disappointed that the Commission chose a course of action that will eliminate an entire unit within the State and also move the remaining KC135 unit to Scott AFB. The latter recommendation was made without an analysis of the costs to the Government or how long it will take the units to return to operational status. The closure of the station and its C-130 unit would be a blow to Illinois and a sad chapter in one of our Nation's finest military units. The 928th Airlift Wing has one of the most distinguished records of any Reserve unit in the country. A highlight of this is the 46 years and over 166,000 hours of flying without an accident, the longest stretch of accident-free flying by any civilian or military organization in the country. We should preserve this record and keep the unit in one of the communities in Illinois willing to host it. Unfortunately, the Commission's recommendation will eliminate this effective and efficient fighting asset. I am also disappointed that the Commission decided to change last year's recommendation concerning moving the 126th Air Refueling Wing. Instead of allowing the process to fully progress, the Commission arbitrarily chose to relocate the unit to Scott Air Force Base. This move was done without any analysis of how long it would take the unit to reach full operational capability due to recruiting and retention concerns. Without this analysis, this recommendation is shortsighted and did not include a thoughtful consideration of other potential sites in the State of Illinois. I therefore cannot support this recommendation. I believe that we should reject the recommendations of the Commission. From the errors I have seen made in just these two examples, I am concerned that other mistakes may have been made that will force us to make poor choices concerning our Nation's defense infrastructure and unnecessarily eliminate the jobs of thousands of civilian employees who have served our Nation proudly. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing these recommendations.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval. I must do this because I am deeply disturbed by the base closure process. In the rush to close installations there has been a failure to analyze all of the facts carefully. This is obvious from the recommendation made by the Commission concerning the Savanna Army depot activity. In the case of Savanna, the Commission ignored a number of important factors. For example, closing the installation would result in the loss of important and hard to replicate capabilities, increase costs above the Army estimate to close the base and move its functions, and reduce ammo storage capability below critical military needs. For instance, the Commission failed to consider that Savanna is one of the most efficient facilities in the Army. During Desert Storm, Savanna had the highest outloading rate of any depot. It is also one of the few with adequate rail service to shipping centers. These national assets would be hard to replace in a nationwide mobilization. In addition, the estimate of the cost of closing Savanna and relocating the U.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center and School [USADACS] is too low. DOD stated that it would cost $38 million to close the installation and relocate functions. However, the Savanna Army depot realignment task force estimates that the cost of closing the facility and moving the school is much higher--as much as $88 million. This includes new construction that will have to take place at McAlester to complete the move. Even more important, the decision to close ammunition storage facilities failed to take into account storage needs. The Army's 1993 Wholesale Ammunition Stockpile Program study indicated that even with 11 depots, as much as 6 million square feet of outside storage will be needed to match our Nation's future ammunition stockpile. This could indicate that the ammunition study is flawed. Because of this decision, we may not have enough space to meet future storage needs. Our ammunition depots are a national asset that will be needed to meet future mobilization needs. The Commission's recommendation will mean the loss of an important part of this irreplaceable asset. I believe that we must reject the recommendations made by the Commission. From the errors I have seen made in just the case of the Savanna Army depot activity, I am concerned that other mistakes may have been made that will force us to make poor choices concerning our Nation's defense infrastructure and unnecessarily eliminate the jobs of thousands of civilian employees who have served our Nation proudly. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing these recommendations.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic that on this day of the dedication of the Korean war veterans memorial on The Mall, we will shortly be working here with the new Republican majority on the Hill to vote to deeply cut veterans' benefits. This bill fails to meet the promise we made to our Nation's veterans in the areas of medical benefits, education, vocational rehabilitation and many other areas. If you do not believe what we Democrats are saying about this bill, I believe you should at least listen to the major veterans' organizations that strongly oppose it. The American Legion believes that the dramatic VA funding reductions called for will clearly undermine the commitment of our Nation to its veterans. This Nation's contract with its veterans is irrevocable and must never be abrogated. The Veterans of Foreign Wars says, ``The designated appropriations still fall well short of the funding necessary to maintain even the current level of earned entitlements for our veterans,'' and it says, ``The cuts cross the line and fall well short.'' The Paralyzed Veterans of America is upset gains in VA medical care account were achieved only at the expense of other major veterans' programs. Vietnam Veterans of America say the cuts ``far exceed what is fair and equitable and that it will force the VA to decide between equally worthy groups of patients.'' The Disabled Veterans are incensed because this bill cuts benefits to some service-connected veterans saying, ``The proposal is ill-advised and strikes at the very heart of our Nation's obligation to provide compensation to all citizen soldiers disabled in the defense of the freedoms we all enjoy.'' That is a provision that would deny mentally incompetent veterans any benefits if their estates are valued at less than $25,000. The Obey amendment is important for the veterans of our country. It reinstates the cuts made in those mentally incompetent veterans' benefits, for example. I urge my colleagues to stand up and support the Obey amendment, and that will be their effort to stand up for our veterans as well.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today, I want to salute the Fulton County Democrat, which this month is observing its 140th year of publishing. This historic and excellent weekly newspaper, which is the oldest continuous business in Fulton County, has provided invaluable [[Page E 1420]] community service to its readers and maintained the highest principles of journalism. The Democrat is also unique in that it has remained in the same family since its founding. That is a real tribute to the Martin family, which started the paper. It is also a tribute to the citizens of Fulton County and their values. Throughout the years, the Democrat has continually promoted the community and served the citizens of our area with great commitment and dedication. I applaud its publisher, Robert L. Martin, Jr., for his leadership; its editor, Ruth W. Lynn, for her hard work and dedication; and everyone who works at the paper for their commitment and service. The Fulton County Democrat is an integral part of our area's proud heritage and tradition. It is with great pride that I join the Fulton County community in recognizing this historic anniversary.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this week I plan to offer an amendment to restore $282 million of the $744 million deleted from the Chairman's mark from DOE's environmental restoration and waste management budget request. Unfortunately, my amendment was not made in order by the Committee on Rules. As a member of the committee, I had offered a germane amendment that I had offered in the full committee, and for good reason. The committee canceled a hearing dedicated to the DOE's nuclear weapons cleanup program. In effect, Congress will be making an uninformed decision about the funding priorities in the program that will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, and which will affect the health and safety of Americans around the DOE weapons complex. Why did this process fail? Many of the same Members who decided to rob DOE's environmental funding to build B-2 bombers and other cold war weapons systems also have DOE facilities in their districts. They do not want to have to go on the record as voting against this funding, and the majority's rules ensures that they will not have to. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, Medicare is a lifeline for 37 million Americans, providing them the health care they need that enables them to live longer without bankrupting them. Prior to its enactment, seniors often went without help, causing medical complications that could have been prevented and additional costs that could have been avoided. Now, the medical care 37 million Americans depend upon is in jeopardy due to the Republican budget plan that cut billions in Medicare to pay for tax cuts for millionaires. This Republican budget would fulfill a contract with the wealthy, but at the expense of breaking a contract with the elderly. This Republican budget plan would end seniors' choice in selecting their own hospitals and their own doctors. This Republican plan would hurt working families who will have to cover the costs that their parents cannot for their medical bills. This Republican budget plan threatens to close more hospitals, particularly in rural and small towns across the country. America is the world's richest country. We can afford to take care of health care for those who have made this country great. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican budget plan.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the House acted to reform the welfare system. We also need to ensure that an even larger welfare system--the more than $200 billion in corporate giveaways--is reformed. Corporate taxpayers must live up to their responsibility as U.S. residents and ensure that they do not dodge their duty to pay their fair share of taxes and their obligation to help reduce the deficit. I gave my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee the opportunity to seek a fairer tax system by offering an amendment that curbs tax benefits given exclusively to multinational corporations and foreign investors. This amendment would have closed loopholes in the code that drain billions from our Treasury every year. Yet, the majority again refuses to stand up to corporate interests so that we can reduce the deficit and put fairness in our tax system. The Republican gravy train for the wealthy never seems to end. Included in this bill is a repeal of the alternative minimum tax. This tax ensures that profitable corporations do not avoid paying taxes in the United States. Many advocates of a repeal say that instead of an AMT, we need to look at individual parts of the code. But once again, the majority leaves loopholes for multinationals virtually untouched. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.