Summary:

All articles in House section

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2400, TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
(House of Representatives - May 22, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3945-H3965] CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2400, TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the House Resolution 449, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2400), to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 449, the conference report is considered as having been read. [[Page H3946]] (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the House of today.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). {time} 1645 Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, under the assumption that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is in favor of the conference report, I rise in opposition to the conference report and pursuant to rule XXXVIII, I request one-third of the time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is the gentleman from Minnesota opposed to the bill? Mr. OBERSTAR. No, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will control one-third of the time, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) will control one-third of the time, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) will control one-third of the time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Henry Clay, the great compromiser, once said the good thing about compromise is that for everything you give up, you get something in return. And, indeed, that is where we are today. We bring back from our conference with the Senate a compromise. Now, if I could waive a magic wand, there are several things in this bill I would do differently. So we do bring a compromise to the floor, but it is a good compromise. It is more than a good compromise, Mr. Speaker. It is an historic piece of legislation. It is an historic piece of legislation because we put the trust back in the transportation trust funds. This is an historic piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because now the American people will know that trust is being put back in the transportation trust fund. The revenue they pay, the gas tax which they pay into the transportation trust fund, will be available to be spent on transportation purposes. Indeed, while I and many others in this Chamber would have preferred to take the trust funds off budget, the compromise we reached is a good one, it is a solid one, it is a guarantee, an ironclad guarantee, that sets aside firewalls on the revenue coming into the transportation trust fund so that that money is available to be spent. So when the average American drives up to the gas pump and pays his 18.3-cent Federal tax, that money is free to be spent. It is a guarantee, it is an ironclad guarantee. This is an historic matter in and of itself, and that is one of the major reasons why this legislation is so important to America. What it means, if we do spend the revenue going into the trust fund, and not a penny more, only the revenue going into the trust fund, means that this bill over six years can guarantee $200,500,000,000 spending, because that is the revenue projected to go into the trust fund. Should there be more revenue going into the trust fund, that money will be available to be spent. Should there be less revenue going into the trust fund, then we will have to reduce the expenditures. It is fair, it is equitable, and it is keeping faith with the American people. This legislation is going to save, the experts tell me, approximately 4,000 lives a year, not only because of the safety provisions we have in it, but because about 30 percent of our 42,000 highway fatalities each year are caused as a result of bad roads. As we improve the roads, we save lives. Another very significant feature to this legislation is that the donor States will now get 90.5 percent minimum allocation guaranteed on the formulas. This is better than the guarantee in either the Senate or the House bill. Also, we have streamlining provisions in here which make it more easy for the States to proceed giving the various groups their opportunity to express themselves, but to get highways and transit systems built more expeditiously so we can gain the increased productivity, convenience and safety that goes with it. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to emphasize that just a few minutes ago the Senate passed this conference report by a vote of 88 to 5, and this afternoon the President of the United States said, ``I will be pleased to sign it into law.'' So we bring to Members now T-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and urge its passage. Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I rise today in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 2400, the TEA-21 Act, which addresses a number of important environmental and safety issues that were committed to the attention of the Committee on Commerce. As requested by the States, the conference report provides certainty regarding EPA's schedule for implementing the new ozone and PM air standards. The conference report also ensures that EPA will keep its promise to harmonize the schedule of its regional haze program and its promise to pay for PM monitors. To ensure that EPA uses the best science possible, the conference report directs the EPA Administrator to consider recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences. These provisions enjoyed wide support from the States and others, and I ask unanimous consent to include in the record three letters of support. The conference report also includes many of the provisions contained in H.R. 2691, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Reauthorization Act of 1998, which passed the House unanimously last month. In addition to reauthorizing NHTSA, it addresses the important issue of air bag safety and improves the protection of drivers, passengers, and children who are involved in motor vehicle crashes. These provisions will ultimately save lives. The conference report also addresses the issue of NHTSA lobbying. We agreed on a bipartisan basis to prohibit NHTSA from lobbying State and local officials, just as they are prohibited from lobbying Members of Congress. In closing, I would like to recognize the extraordinary effort that it took to bring this legislation to the floor today. Chairman Bilirakis, Chairman, Tauzin, and Ranking Member Dingell all worked very hard and on a bipartisan basis. I would also like to thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman Petri, as well as Ranking Members Oberstar and Rahall, for the high level of cooperation we received from the Transportation Committee. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the adoption of the conference report. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are pleased to bring to the House today is strong on mobility, strong on safety, strong on economic development. It sustains the economic expansion that our country is experiencing. It gives us thrust to continue the international competitiveness of the nation's economy. It is a balanced bill. It is strong on transportation, including all modes of transportation, transit, alternative transportation. It protects the environment, enhances safety, ensures fair treatment for construction and transit workers, for pedestrians, for bicyclists, for disadvantaged contractors, for people trying to end their dependence on welfare through the welfare to work provisions. Most importantly, it restores trust, the trust of the American people, to the Highway Trust Fund. It, with the guarantee provision we have included in this legislation, assures that we achieve in principle the goal we have sought in practice for so long, to take the trust fund off budget, but within the budget. This is no small accomplishment. We have been working since 1968, for 30 years, to bring the Highway Trust Fund back to the position where the revenues in are the revenues spent out and invested in the Nation's transportation needs. For the leadership that brought us to this point, I salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster). I like the name of the bill that passed the House, BESTEA, the Bud E. Shuster Transportation for All Eternity Act. And I salute my chairman for the leadership he has given us for the strong role that he played in the conference, and bringing back to this body [[Page H3947]] an extraordinarily proud piece of legislation. We have much to be proud of with this legislation. All of the points that I mentioned a moment ago can be expanded upon, but I think we can sum it up best with what the President said just moments ago. ``Let me say, this bill does show that fiscal responsibility and investing in our future go hand-in-hand toward preparing our people and our country for the next century. I want to thank Secretary Slater, Larry Stein, especially the Members of the economic team, for the hard work they did starting from a very difficult position to reduce the spending in this bill. If the Congress does in fact pass the bill as expected, I will be pleased to sign it into law.'' We would have liked a higher spending level. We would have liked many other provisions in this bill as we passed it in the House. But we bring back to you something that every Member of this body can take home to his or her district and stand up and be proud of and tell the American people we have done good as we approach the 21st Century, that that bridge to the 21st Century will not be a chimerical bridge, but it will be a bridge built on steel girders and concrete and asphalt and will take America into the 21st Century. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). He is, without question, I think one of the most effective chairs in this House, and he certainly knows how to run a railroad. I also have considerable respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the subcommittee chair for surface transportation. As far as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is concerned, my friend from the wrong side of the bridge in Minnesota, he and I vote against each other about, I think we voted against each other more in the past week on this issue than we have in all of the time we have been here. I have great respect and affection for him. But I stand here today because I believe it is important to recognize that there are certain principles which are being grossly violated by this bill that should not be violated. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota just said that there is something in this bill that every Member can take back home to their districts. That is certainly, certainly true. There are some 1,800 projects in this bill. To put that into perspective, in the entire history of the highway program, we have only had 1,022 projects for Members. In this bill, in one year, there will be 1,800. That is the most spectacular example of excess that I can recall. There is even in this bill a $120 million authorization for a highway in Canada. Now, I know a lot of citizens in a lot of States who would prefer that those dollars be spent in their own States. I did not know that Canada had become attached as another State, but evidently, despite that, we are going to spend money there any way. The main reason to oppose this bill is that it is simply a budget buster. As I understand it, it is $32 billion over the CBO baseline over 6 years, and as a consequence of that, to find ways to pay for that excess, the committee has taken, we are told, about $15 billion out of the hides of veterans' health care perhaps. They have also taken out $2 billion out of the title XX block grant. That is the program which pays for child care, for child protective services, for foster care, for home base services for the elderly, for services for at risk youth, for Meals on Wheels for the home bound. $2 billion coming out of that over three years. And then the bill says that for every year thereafter, there will be a continued reduction in that program. I do not believe that home bound senior citizens expect us to build highways by running over their needs, and I do not believe that veterans think we should do so either. I have two letters which I read earlier and I will read again a portion of them. The Paralyzed Veterans Association of America says as follows: ``It has been purported that veterans have now agreed to the offsets due to the inclusion of certain increases in other benefits. This is patently untrue. The conferees should reconsider their actions in using veterans funds as offsets to pay for transportation and highway projects that far exceed the levels established in last year's budget agreement.'' {time} 1700 The Disabled American Veterans urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question on this bill because of their objections to the veterans' cuts. It just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that while highways certainly deserve to be a top priority, they do not deserve to be the only priority, and we should not be funding concrete in another country. Certainly, we should not be paying for 1,800 special congressional projects by taking it out of the hides of veterans' health care and title 20 block grant, which is needed by our most needy and defenseless citizens. So that is why I will be offering, if I have the opportunity at the end of the bill, I will be offering a motion to recommit to at least eliminate the cuts for veterans that are used to finance a portion of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I salute the Chairman's leadership in this matter. Mr. Speaker, the true social safety net of this country is not made up of speeches delivered in this hall or even legislation passed in this hall. The true social safety net of this country is the productive capacity of the American people and the American economy. Passage of this legislation will enhance that productivity that will improve, thereby, the social safety net and the well-being of all Americans. I would join my colleagues in supporting this legislation that is backed by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Public Transit Association and the Representatives of America's Motorists, the AAA, the Senate of the United States by an 88- to-5 vote, and the President of the United States, who suggested the offsets that some of my colleagues deplore. But it has his support. It should from my colleagues. It is a good bill. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure. This bill provides the vital funds necessary to rebuild Michigan's crumbling roads, bridges, and interstates, and I congratulate and thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for their work. This legislation also includes provisions within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. They address important public health and safety matters, and do so in a manner that is fully bipartisan. I want to commend and thank Chairman Bliley, Mr. Tauzin, and Mr. Bilirakis for their efforts on these issues. H.R. 2400 contains provisions reauthorizing the activities of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The legislation contains the funding level requested by the Administration, and does two other important things. One, it establishes a rulemaking for the next generation of motor vehicle occupant protection systems. This is designed to address the tragic problems we've seen with the current generation of airbags. Second, the legislation corrects some flaws and anomalies in the formula used for calculating the domestic parts content of motor vehicles. This provision will give consumers more accurate information about the origin of their vehicles. H.R. 2400 contains one other provision of special note. It will give States and communities certainty regarding the implementation of the new national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. These legislative provisions do not change Administration policy, nor do they address fundamental questions regarding these standards and their impact. They simply ensure that the Administration's schedule for these standards is met and that the necessary monitoring data will be gathered expeditiously without imposing any financial burden on the States. In addition, we included language in the Statement of Managers to ensure that Administrator Browner carefully considers the recent recommendations of the National Research [[Page H3948]] Council regarding the national fine particle monitoring network which will be developed and deployed over the next two years. This group of independent scientists urged EPA to ensure that the plans for this monitoring program are thoroughly peer-reviewed at an early date, while such a review can still inform the monitoring-network design and operation. The Statement of Managers endorses this reasonable and prudent step and I fully expect EPA to take the necessary steps to ensure that all aspects of the development of this monitoring network are in fact subject to peer review. Beside making several minor technical changes, the Conferees made only one significant change to the original Inhofe Amendment as passed by the Senate. And that was to address an issue raised but not resolved by the Senate provision. Section 4102 not only calls for the establishment of a national network of fine particle monitors, it provides that areas will not be designated as nonattainment until States have the opportunity to review three years of data from these monitors. This guarantee was established by the President and adopted by EPA last summer. State submissions of programs to control fine particles are also delayed since they are triggered by the nonattainment designation process. However, EPA's proposed regional haze program could short-circuit this timing by requiring States to make decisions regarding the control of fine particles before the necessary technical information from the monitoring network is available. Why? Well, as Administrator Browner has testified: ``Like the new ambient air quality standards for fine particulates, the proposed rule for regional haze would similarly require the control of fine particulates.'' So since the two programs control the same pollutant and rest on the same technical information, even EPA has recognized that the two programs must be harmonized. To again quote Administrator Browner, ``it is our intention to manage the two together'' and ``not to have regional haze go first, but to actually combine them.'' These comments have been echoed by the Administrator and other EPA officials in other forums and in the Agency's official writings. However, there is a statutory glitch in EPA's efforts to harmonize the two programs. A provision in the Clean Air Act's visibility section requires State plans within one year after the visibility regulations are final. To address this statutory deadline, the Conferees added language to guarantee that the State submissions on regional haze will coincide with the State's fine particle submissions. As such, the provision implements EPA's stated policy regarding the timing issue. (I would add that the provision is not intended to endorse or ratify EPA's proposed regional haze program and the Conferees took no position on the legality or prudence of any portion of the proposed regulations.) Mr. Speaker, the Inhofe Amendment as modified by the Conferees represents a modest initial step to deal with the many issues raised by EPA's new air quality standards. I must promise with regret that this will not be the last time we will be before the House with legislation on this topic. Until that date, I urge members to support this first step. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who has spent such an enormous amount of time on this bill, and I congratulate him on his work. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this conference report on this most historic piece of legislation. For too long, this Nation has allowed its basic surface transportation system to deteriorate. For too long, we have witnessed unsafe road conditions contributing to the fatality and injury rate of the American public. And for too long, we have experienced our competitive posture in world commerce be adversely affected by an increasingly inefficient surface transportation network. Today, we are making an historic move that this shall be no more. This conference agreement to authorize Federal highway, highway safety, motor carrier and transit programs is the largest and most comprehensive surface transportation bills to be considered in the history of our Nation, and I am very proud of this legislation. I am proud of our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I am proud of our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). I am very proud of the staff that has worked virtually around the clock for the last 2 or 3 weeks to get this historic legislation to the floor of the House, and they deserve the highest words of praise as well. Indeed, in dollar terms, this legislation will provide over $200 billion during the course of a 6-year period for highway and transit facilities. However, there is much more than just dollars in this legislation. It transcends considerations of the concrete, the asphalt, the steel and stone. Indeed, what we are doing in this legislation is improving our standard of living for our children in generations to come. It entails a type of legacy that we wish to leave future generations of Americans. It is an investment in America's infrastructure finally and foremost, rather than throwing money overseas. So I approve of this legislation wholeheartedly. We address safety. We address the environment. We address flexibility. We truly have an intermodal piece of legislation here, and I commend it to my colleagues for passage. Safety. We are all concerned about the safety of our children and our families. This bill contains an impressive array of weapons to combat unsafe road conditions, and importantly, unsafe drivers. Road rage is on the rise in the country. Tempers flare as drivers are gridlocked in traffic snarls. This bill will bring to bear an better financed Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program that contains the keys to unlock that gridlock and sooth those flaring tempers. With this bill, we are also escalating the war against drunk driving, including through a $500 million arsenal of incentives to the States to lower blood alcohol content standards. The environment. Transportation is about much more than roads, bridges and highways. It is also about alternative means of moving people from place to place. The Transportation Enhancements Programs will experience a significant increase in funding for an expanded list of eligible projects that will serve to make the transportation experience more enjoyable for many Americans. Innovation. Americans are innovative by nature, and this bill rewards that attitude in terms of both technology and financing. Under it, intelligent transportation systems, maglev and other new transportation initiatives will be further advanced, and indeed, taken past the demonstration stage and placed into every day use. Further, this legislation further promotes innovative financing approaches to transportation problems through a wide range of tools. And finally, a promise. A promise that will now be fulfilled to the people of the Appalachian Region more than 30 years ago. For the first time, the Appalachian Highway System will be fully incorporated into the Nation's highway program and financed by trust fund revenues. This will provide a secure and dedicated source of funding for the unfinished segments of the Appalachian Development Highway System, opening impoverished areas greater accessibility and subsequent economic development. In this regard, the inclusion of this program in this legislation is due to the efforts of West Virginia's senior Senator, Robert C. Byrd. And it will stand as his lasting legacy. In conclusion, to the American motorist, know this. The taxes we pay every time we gas-up our vehicles will no longer be used for non- transportation purposes. This bill contains an iron-clad, rock-ribbed, copper-riveted guarantee that fuel tax revenues will be spent on highway and transit improvements. We have built a fire wall around these revenues from which there will be no diversion. My colleagues, I would be remiss if I did not express our appreciation of the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Bud Shuster, and for our ranking Member, Jim Oberstar, for their tireless efforts on behalf of securing fairness, equity and justice in the federal highway and transit programs as exemplified by this conference agreement. These two gentlemen, along with Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri and myself, worked to uphold the principles espoused in the House bill during our meetings with the other body. I must also commend the Secretary of Transportation. During the course of our deliberations over this legislation, Rodney Slater did not sit idly in his office. He rolled up his sleeves and got down to work with us to seek resolution of many, many difficult issues and decisions that were addressed. I urge approval by the House of this conference report. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. [[Page H3949]] At this time, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. When this measure was before the House last month, it included a provision which stated that savings from veterans' programs should not be used to offset any costs associated with the bill. The House also passed a second provision which I supported, instructing House negotiators not to use funds from changes in veterans' programs to pay for these projects. The conference report ignores those provisions for the most part. Mr. Speaker, over the past dozen years, the VA Committee has reported legislation changing veterans' programs and saving the American taxpayer over $12 billion. In addition, Congress has reversed veterans' spending created by courts in the Davenport and Gardner cases, leading to an additional billion dollars or more in savings. When the Administration suggested that we repeal the windfall created by the VA General Counsel decision that requires the VA to compensate veterans with tobacco-related illnesses, the Administration projected that the repeal would save $17 billion over five years. The Administration also suggested that we spend only $1.5 billion of that savings to enhance neglected programs serving veterans. Unfortunately, the conferees have handed the Administration a victory by using all but $1.6 billion of the $17 billion in savings for purposes other than veterans' programs. It's not right that less than 10 percent of those savings is being put back into the budget for veterans. While this $1.6 billion will be used to improve some of our highest priority veterans' programs, we should do better. It's not right Mr. Speaker--vote against the conference report that takes too much from veterans' programs. Mr. Speaker, for the information of my colleagues, I am including the following information on the issue of VA disability compensation for tobacco-related disabilities. I also include an explanation of the proposed increase in benefits for veterans going to school under the Montgomery GI Bill and other benefit enhancements. Background and Discussion Legislative History of Provision Repealing VA Tobacco Compensation Authority In January 1993, the General Counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Mr. James A. Endicott, Jr., signed a memorandum addressed to the Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) which had as its subject ``Entitlement to Benefits Based upon Tobacco Use While in Service.'' This memorandum was Office of General Counsel Precedent Opinion 2-93. Under applicable Department regulation (38 C.F.R. 14.507(b)), a ``precedent opinion'' is one that ``necessitates regulatory change, interprets a statute or regulation as a matter of first impression, clarifies or modifies a prior opinion, or is otherwise of significance beyond the matter at issue.'' A precedent opinion is: ``Binding on Department officials and employees in subsequent matters involving a legal issue decided in the precedent opinion, unless there has been a material change in a controlling statute or regulation or the opinion has been overruled or modified by a subsequent precedent opinion or judicial decision.'' The precedent opinion arose in the context of an appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals by the surviving spouse of a veteran who died of adenocarcinoma of the lung and who had smoked a pack and a half of cigarettes per day for over forty years. In the opinion, the General Counsel held that the BVA could determine whether nicotine dependence may be considered a disease or injury for disability compensation purposes. It also held that ``direct service connection of disability or death may be established if the evidence establishes that injury or disease resulted from tobacco use in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service'' and that ``tobacco use does not constitute drug abuse within the meaning of statutes'' prohibiting VA from considering drug or alcohol abuse as occurring in line of duty. A subsequent decision by the BVA determined that the veteran's tobacco use while in service was an ``event or exposure'' that resulted some years after service in disease that produced disability and death. Accordingly, the claim of the surviving spouse was allowed. The Compensation and Pension Service of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) advised VBA field adjudicative units in a March 4, 1993 conference call to defer action on claims involving the use of tobacco products during active service. This moratorium on action lasted for four years until a January 28, 1997 directive was issued giving field adjudicative units instructions on how to process tobacco- related claims. In May of 1997, VA General Counsel Mary Lou Keener issued another precedent opinion addressing the circumstances in which VA could determine that tobacco- related disability or death that was secondary to in-service tobacco use was service connected for VA benefit purposes. That opinion held that if: 1) nicotine dependence could be considered a disease for purposes of laws governing veterans' benefits; 2) the veteran acquired a dependence on nicotine in service; and 3) that dependence was the proximate cause of disability or death, then service connection could be established on a secondary basis. In May of 1997, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown transmitted a legislative proposal on behalf of the Administration to terminate the VA's authority to compensate or otherwise award benefits to a veteran for diseases or deaths attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by a veteran during military service. According to Secretary Brown's letter: ``This amendment is consistent with the 1990 budget reconciliation act, in which Congress prohibited compensation for disabilities which are the result of veterans' abuse of alcohol and drugs. This was fiscally responsible action which enhanced the integrity of our compensation programs, and our proposal regarding tobacco use is offered in that same spirit. In addition, claims based upon tobacco-related disorders present medical and legal issues which could impede ongoing efforts to speed claim processing by placing significant additional demands on the adjudicative system. This provision would not preclude establishment of service connection for disability or death from a disease or injury which became manifest or was aggravated during active service or became manifest to the requisite degree of disability during any applicable presumptive period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of title 38, United States Code. This amendment would apply to claims filed after the date of its enactment.'' The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Benefits held a hearing on May 14, 1997 on the VA's proposal. Testimony was received from veterans organizations and the Department. The Subcommittee made no recommendation on the proposed legislation. In a letter dated September 19, 1997, (copy attached) VA Secretary-Designate Hershel W. Gober urged the Congress to take action on the VA's legislative proposal regarding tobacco-related benefits. In this same letter, Secretary- Designate Gober highlighted a new cost estimate of the impact of processing and paying tobacco-related claims. According to the Secretary-Designate, if VA could process all claims immediately, the cost of compensating veterans would be $4.4 billion in fiscal year 1998 and $23.8 billion over five years. It was estimated that VA could receive 540,000 tobacco-related claims, and that this would increase the VA's backlog of pending claims to over 1.5 million in fiscal year 1998, and that average processing time would increase from 113 days to 312 days. A letter dated March 17, 1998 (copy attached) from VA Acting Secretary Togo West reaffirmed the Administration's position on compensation benefits for tobacco-related disabilities. It also noted that according to the President's budget submission ``enactment of VA's proposal would result in FY '99 savings of $741 million and five-year savings of $16.9 billion.'' In response to a question about the intent of the Administration's proposal, Acting General Counsel Robert E. Coy clarified the intent of the legislative language with regard to veterans with diseases that could be attributable to tobacco use or some other cause. Mr. Coy stated in his March 19, 1998 letter (copy attached) that: ``The Administration's proposal would in no way affect veterans' ability to establish service connection on the basis of any legal presumptions authorizing VA benefits. The Administration has proposed only that disabilities or deaths may not be considered service connected ``on the basis that'' the underlying diseases are ``attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by the veterans during service.'' The effect of enactment of this proposal would be that if the only manner in which a disability or death could be considered service connected is ``on the basis that'' it is due to either the veteran's tobacco use or nicotine dependence in service, that avenue for establishing service connection would be foreclosed.'' On March 30, 1998, Acting Secretary West transmitted a revised draft of its proposed legislation to the Congress (copy attached). Acting Secretary (now Secretary) West noted that: ``Like the consumption of alcohol, the use of tobacco products is not a requirement of military service. Most veterans, like most Americans, do not use tobacco products. It is inappropriate to compensate those veterans who do use tobacco, and their survivors, under a program developed for veterans who became disabled in service to our nation. ``In the debate which has ensued since our proposal of last May, we have heard no persuasive argument for why it should fall upon the government to compensate veterans for, or treat on a service-connected basis, disabilities first arising postservice whose only connections (sic) to service are the veterans' own tobacco use. We do not believe the American people consider these to be the government's responsibility. (emphasis added).'' In the VA Committee's report to the Committee on the Budget on the budget proposed for veterans' programs for fiscal year 1999, the Committee expressed the following view on the Administration's proposal: [[Page H3950]] ``The Committee concurs with former Secretary Brown's concerns about the integrity of the compensation system. The Committee also believes that paying compensation to veterans for tobacco-related illnesses goes beyond the government's responsibility. There is a significant philosophical difference between service-connected compensation and other disability programs such as Social Security or the VA pension program which make no distinctions based on when a disability or illness occurs or is first diagnosed. Service-connected compensation, on the other hand, is based on the presumption that a person would not have the illness or disability save for some event or circumstance beyond the person's control. A policy of paying compensation for tobacco-related illnesses absolves the veteran of personal responsibility for his or her choices about tobacco use. In the past, Congress has determined that the individual, not the federal government, is responsible for illnesses which are related to the use of alcohol or drugs. Thus, a policy of paying benefits for illnesses related to the use of tobacco would be inconsistent with these prior determinations. ``The Committee is also very concerned that the projected annual caseload of 540,000 tobacco-related claims would overload the adjudication system and lengthen the already- too-long processing time for all types of claims. VA estimated in 1997 that processing time for an original compensation claim would increase from 113 days to 312 days. ``To reflect the nation's commitment to its veterans, the Committee will recommend legislation that will use all of the savings from enacting a limitation on compensation for tobacco-related illnesses to improve a wide range of programs. These are programs affecting our most disabled veterans, surviving dependents, separating service members, unemployed and under-employed veterans, and those seeking an education or a home.'' Section 8203. Twenty percent increase in rates of basic educational assistance under Montgomery GI Bill. This provision would increase the current Montgomery GI Bill basic rate from $440 per month to $528 per month (chapter 30) beginning October 1, 1998, and the basic rate for the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance (chapter 1606). This is a 20 percent increase and follows the Administration's proposal. Section 8204. Increase in assistance amount for specially adapted housing. This section increases the adaptive housing grants for severely disabled veterans from $38,000 to $43,000. The VA offers a one-time Specially Adapted Housing grant to certain severely disabled veterans so that they may purchase a home specially adapted to their needs or make modifications to current residences. The last increase was 10 years ago. Section 8205. Increase in amount of assistance for automobile and adaptive equipment for certain disabled veterans. This increases the auto allowance for severely disabled veterans from $5,500 to $8,000 to account for the rising cost of automobiles. The VA provides a one-time payment toward the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance to certain veterans with a service-connected loss of one or both hands or feet or permanent loss of use, or permanent impairment of vision in both eyes. This would be the first increase since 1988. Section 8206. Increase in aid and attendance rates for veterans eligible for pension. This section increases the monthly pension benefit by $50 for severely disabled veterans in need of the full time aid and attendance of another person. This increase is intended to assist the increasing number of low-income veterans who will need alternatives to nursing home care over the next 15 years. Section 8207. Eligibility of certain remarried surviving spouses for reinstatement of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation upon termination of that remarriage. This provision will allow all surviving spouses of veterans who die from a service-connected disability to resume their Dependency and Indemnity Compensation if their subsequent remarriage ends. This repeals an OBRA 1990 provision. Section 8208. Extension of prior revision to offset rule for Department of Defense Special Separation Benefit program. The 1997 DOD Authorization Act prohibited VA compensation offsets on the gross amount of special separation bonuses (SSB) for those separating after September 30, 1996. This section would make that provision in the 1997 DOD Authorization Act retroactive to 1991. If a bonus recipient subsequently qualifies for VA disability compensation, current law requires VA to offset the entire amount of SSB, including amounts withheld as income tax. ____ The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, September 19, 1997. Hon. Bob Stump, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: It is because of my deep concern about the impact that tobacco-related compensation could have on the integrity of the entire compensation system, coupled with the fiscal impact, that I am writing you to encourage your action on the VA legislative proposal regarding tobacco- related service connection. I am also concerned that this sizable influx of claims into our system will so significantly increase our backlog that veterans with non- tobacco related conditions will experience intolerable delays in the processing of their claims. These concerns are made eminently clear in our official estimate of the potential impact of compensating veterans for tobacco-related conditions which is transmitted with this letter. This is an extremely complex estimate--one which has been taken us considerable time to develop. Contributing to its complexity is the number of assumptions that had to be made about veterans' health and mortality, veterans' smoking behavior, and most significantly, the rate at which veterans' tobacco-related compensation claims may be anticipated. I believe that the assistance provided us by Jeffrey Harris, MD, Ph.D., a nationally, known expert in the area of costs associated with tobacco-related diseases, was critical to informing our decisions. Dr. Harris' report is included as part of this package. Although some of the many assumptions in our calculations could produce differing results, any reasonable calculation would know just how big an issue tobacco-related compensation is for VA, and for the Nation. I want to highlight some significant points about the estimated cost and workload impact of tobacco-related compensation. If we could process all claims immediately, we believe that compensating veterans and survivors could cost an estimated $4.4 billion in Fiscal Year 1998 and $23.8 billion over the next five years. These estimates do not include the cost of benefits to survivors of already deceased veterans. Realistically, we estimate that while we may receive over 540,000 tobacco-related claims, we will not be able to process them upon receipt. The backlog of all VA disability claims will increase from current 465,000 to over 1.5 million in Fiscal Year 1998, and increase steadily to over 2 million in Fiscal Year 2000. At the same time, the processing time of original claims will deteriorate from the current 113 days to 312 days. Because of the backlog, the actual tobacco benefits paid will likely be $40 million in the first year and $1.9 billion over the next five years unless there is a significant reallocation of resources that would permit dramatic changes in the Veterans Benefits Administration's information technology and infrastructure, and allow for massive hiring and training of new VA employees. I appreciate your patience in waiting for this estimate. We are also examining the impact of tobacco-related compensation on the VA health care system. Clearly, the service connection of substantial numbers of veterans for tobacco-related conditions that in most cases have intense and costly medical treatment associated with them has the potential for large numbers of newly eligible, high priority veterans to seek health care from VA. I hope you will agree with me that the enormity of the impact on the claims backlog and on timeless of processing as well the fiscal impact, punctuate the critical need for prompt enactment of that legislation. I will be happy to personally discuss this with you, and VA staff are available to provide further explanation to Committee staff as desired. I think that these estimates clearly explain why we should all be concerned about the implications of tobacco-related compensation. I look forward to the Committee's prompt action on the proposed legislation to remedy this situation. Please let me know if we can provide additional information. Sincerely, Hershel W. Gober, Secretary-Designate. ____ Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, March 17, 1998. Hon. Bob Stump, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: As you and your colleagues on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee make final preparations to submit your Fiscal Year 1999 budgetary views and estimates to the House Budget Committee, I am taking this opportunity to highlight and reaffirm the Administration's position on compensation benefits for tobacco-related disabilities. VA has proposed legislation to preclude service-connected benefit eligibility based upon diseases which first arise after service (and after any post-service presumptive period) if their only connection to service is the veterans' own use of tobacco products. VA's proposal would not preclude service connection for tobacco-related diseases actually manifesting themselves in service or within presumptive periods in law, and would apply only to claims filed after the date of enactment. The Department's position is based upon several considerations. First, the responsibility to compensate veterans for diseases whose connection to service is the veterans' own tobacco use--in some cases only briefly--while in service, should not rest with the Government. Second, we believe that providing benefits in these cases exceeds the American public's sense of the Government's obligations to veterans, and so threatens to undermine support for VA programs. Third, if projections regarding the magnitude of future tobacco-related claims--perhaps as many as 540,000 in a year--prove anywhere near correct, without our legislation VA's claims system could be so overwhelmed as to seriously impair its ability to process claims of any kind in a timely manner. As reflected in the President's FY '99 budget submission, enactment of VA's proposal would result in FY '99 savings of $741 million [[Page H3951]] and five-year savings of $16.9 billion. We appreciate your consideration of our views on this critical issue. Sincerely, Togo D. West, Jr., Acting Secretary. ____ DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Office of the General Counsel Washington DC, March 1, 1998. Carl Commenator, Esq., Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Commenator. You have requested that we provide, as a technical service, an explanation as to how the Administration's proposal to restrict service connection for certain tobacco-related disabilities and deaths would, if enacted, affect claimants' ability to establish service connection under certain presumptions in law and regulation. Specifically, you referenced a number of conditions presumed to be service connected if suffered by certain veterans exposed to ionizing radiation or herbicides I service. The short answer is that the Administration's proposal would in no way affect veterans' ability to establish service connection on the basis on any legal presumptions authorizing VA benefits. The Administration has proposed only that disabilities or deaths may not be considered service connected ``on the basis that'' the underlying diseases are ``attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by the veteran during service''. The effect of enactment of this proposal would be that if the only manner in which a disability or death could be considered service connected is ``on the basis that'' it is due to either the veteran's tobacco use or nicotine dependence in service, that avenue for establishing service connection would be foreclosed. The new Sec. 1103(b) of title 38, United States Code, as proposed in the Administration's bill, would specifically provide that this change in law would in no way preclude establishing service connection on the basis of the presumptions authorized under Sec. Sec. 1112 and 1116 of title 38: Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as precluding the establishment of service connection for disability or death from a disease or injury which . . . . became manifest to the requisite degree of disability during any applicable presumptive period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of this title. In other words, if a disability or death could be presumed service connected on the basis of the various provisions of sections 1112 and 1116, which of course include presumptions for certain radiation-exposed and herbicide-exposed veterans, the proposed limitation on establishing service connection ``on the basis of'' tobacco use in service would have no preclusive effect at all. For example, as authorized by Sec. 1112(c), specified cancers may be presumed service connected if suffered by certain radiation-exposed veterans. If a veteran could qualify for service connection under such a presumption, as the Administration's tobacco legislation plainly states, that service connection and resulting benefit eligibility would be unaffected by enactment of the legislation. The same is true for all other presumptions in law, including the herbicide presumptions for respiratory cancers and other illnesses authorized by Sec. 1116 of title 38. The result of enactment of our legislation would be to simply restore the manner and method by which VA adjudicated claims prior to issuance of the two General Counsel opinion on tobacco use and service connection. I hope the foregoing is fully responsive to your request. Sincerely yours, Robert E. Coy, Acting General Counsel. ____ Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, March 30, 1998. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is a draft bill, the ``Veterans Tobacco Amendments of 1998'', which I ask be referred to the appropriate committee for prompt consideration and enactment. It would relieve the Government of an unjustified liability for certain postservice health effects of veterans' tobacco use in service. On May 9, 1997, VA submitted to Congress a draft bill whose provisions included a proposal bar to establishing service connection for disabilities or deaths if their only relationship to service were the veterans' inservice nicotine dependence or use of tobacco products. The enclosed draft is substantively identical to section 105 of the bill VA offered last year, introduced in the Senate as S. 987. Our Nation has an enduring obligation to those who, because of serving in defense of our freedoms, become disabled or die. We at VA are privileged to be the ones who deliver on that obligation. However, Congress has recognized the appropriateness of boundaries to the compensation program. This bill is consistent with the 1990 budget reconciliation act, in which Congress prohibited payment of disability benefits for illnesses based solely on use of alcohol or drugs during military service. Like the consumption of alcohol, the use of tobacco products is not a requirement of military service. Most veterans, like most Americans, do not use tobacco products. It is inappropriate to compensate those veterans who do use tobacco, and their survivors, under a program developed for veterans who became disabled in service to our nation. In the debate which has ensued since our proposal of last May, we have heard no persuasive argument for why it should fall upon the government to compensate veterans for, or treat on a service-connected basis, disabilities first arising postservice whose only connections to service are the veterans' own tobacco use. We do not believe the American people consider these to be the government's responsibility. However, our proposal would not preclude service connection for tobacco-related disabilities or deaths from diseases which actually manifest themselves during service or within any applicable presumptive period, and to this extent our bill is less preclusive than the alcohol- and drug-abuse proscription. Our proposal also is limited in its reach to claims filed with VA after its enactment. Thus, veterans and survivors currently receiving these benefits and veterans and survivors filing claims prior to enactment would not be affected by the change. We are privileged to serve as stewards for veterans programs, which deservedly enjoy broad public support. With that stewardship, however, comes a responsibility to recommend appropriate changes when we sense they may become imperiled by something which could undermine public support for them. The estimated influx of tobacco-related claims-- perhaps as many as 540,000 in the next year--threatens to overwhelm our adjudication system and result in unconscionable delays for all VA claimants. Because of the enormous implications it could have in terms of both costs and impact on claims processing, the current requirement that VA consider these smoking-related disabilities and deaths to be service connected carries the potential for just such programmatic harm. This legislation would affect direct spending; therefore, it is subject to the pay-as-you-go (paygo) requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990. As reflected in the President's Budget for FY 1999, enactment of this proposal would result in paygo savings of $741 million during FY 1999 and $16.9 billion over the period FYs 1999- 2003. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this draft bill to the Congress, and that its enactment would be in accord with the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, Togo D. West, Jr., Acting Secretary. ____ A Bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that service connection for certain disabilities or deaths may not be established solely on the basis of inservice tobacco use or nicotine dependence. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Tobacco Amendments of 1998''. SECTION 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST VETERANS BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY BASED SOLELY UPON TOBACCO USE IN SERVICE. (a) Service Connection.--Subchapter 1 of chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: ``Sec. 1103. Special provisions relating to claims based upon effects of tobacco products. ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a veteran's disability or death shall not be considered to have resulted from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval or air service for purposes of this title on the basis that it resulted from injury or disease attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by the veteran during the veteran's service. ``(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as precluding the establishment of service connection for disability or death from a disease or injury which is otherwise shown to have been incurred or aggravated in active military, naval or air service or which became manifest to the requisite degree of disability during any applicable presumption period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of this title.''. (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 11 of title 38, United State Code, is amended by adding the following new item after the item relating to section 1102: ``1103. Special provisions relating to claims based upon effects of tobacco products.''. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall apply to claims received by the Secretary after the date of enactment of this Act. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr.Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has indicated that he is not supporting this piece of legislation. I heard my colleague say that this is a social safety net. Well, what we need to know that just got paved over are low-income, disabled veterans who had a funding in this bill. It was only $500 million, but it was a chance to create a permanent program for low- income, disabled veterans to get what we said they deserve. [[Page H3952]] Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to enter into a colloquy is that if they are not allowed to use the tobacco money, is it not true that there are a number of excess acres and VA sites around the country, my understanding is, on Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills? How ironic that this land is not being used for the veterans, but they want to preserve it for a greenbelt, and yet we are taking veterans' money to pave over areas for highways. Would the Chairman look at the excess acreage

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2400, TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
(House of Representatives - May 22, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3945-H3965] CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2400, TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the House Resolution 449, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2400), to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 449, the conference report is considered as having been read. [[Page H3946]] (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the House of today.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). {time} 1645 Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, under the assumption that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is in favor of the conference report, I rise in opposition to the conference report and pursuant to rule XXXVIII, I request one-third of the time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is the gentleman from Minnesota opposed to the bill? Mr. OBERSTAR. No, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will control one-third of the time, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) will control one-third of the time, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) will control one-third of the time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Henry Clay, the great compromiser, once said the good thing about compromise is that for everything you give up, you get something in return. And, indeed, that is where we are today. We bring back from our conference with the Senate a compromise. Now, if I could waive a magic wand, there are several things in this bill I would do differently. So we do bring a compromise to the floor, but it is a good compromise. It is more than a good compromise, Mr. Speaker. It is an historic piece of legislation. It is an historic piece of legislation because we put the trust back in the transportation trust funds. This is an historic piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because now the American people will know that trust is being put back in the transportation trust fund. The revenue they pay, the gas tax which they pay into the transportation trust fund, will be available to be spent on transportation purposes. Indeed, while I and many others in this Chamber would have preferred to take the trust funds off budget, the compromise we reached is a good one, it is a solid one, it is a guarantee, an ironclad guarantee, that sets aside firewalls on the revenue coming into the transportation trust fund so that that money is available to be spent. So when the average American drives up to the gas pump and pays his 18.3-cent Federal tax, that money is free to be spent. It is a guarantee, it is an ironclad guarantee. This is an historic matter in and of itself, and that is one of the major reasons why this legislation is so important to America. What it means, if we do spend the revenue going into the trust fund, and not a penny more, only the revenue going into the trust fund, means that this bill over six years can guarantee $200,500,000,000 spending, because that is the revenue projected to go into the trust fund. Should there be more revenue going into the trust fund, that money will be available to be spent. Should there be less revenue going into the trust fund, then we will have to reduce the expenditures. It is fair, it is equitable, and it is keeping faith with the American people. This legislation is going to save, the experts tell me, approximately 4,000 lives a year, not only because of the safety provisions we have in it, but because about 30 percent of our 42,000 highway fatalities each year are caused as a result of bad roads. As we improve the roads, we save lives. Another very significant feature to this legislation is that the donor States will now get 90.5 percent minimum allocation guaranteed on the formulas. This is better than the guarantee in either the Senate or the House bill. Also, we have streamlining provisions in here which make it more easy for the States to proceed giving the various groups their opportunity to express themselves, but to get highways and transit systems built more expeditiously so we can gain the increased productivity, convenience and safety that goes with it. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to emphasize that just a few minutes ago the Senate passed this conference report by a vote of 88 to 5, and this afternoon the President of the United States said, ``I will be pleased to sign it into law.'' So we bring to Members now T-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and urge its passage. Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I rise today in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 2400, the TEA-21 Act, which addresses a number of important environmental and safety issues that were committed to the attention of the Committee on Commerce. As requested by the States, the conference report provides certainty regarding EPA's schedule for implementing the new ozone and PM air standards. The conference report also ensures that EPA will keep its promise to harmonize the schedule of its regional haze program and its promise to pay for PM monitors. To ensure that EPA uses the best science possible, the conference report directs the EPA Administrator to consider recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences. These provisions enjoyed wide support from the States and others, and I ask unanimous consent to include in the record three letters of support. The conference report also includes many of the provisions contained in H.R. 2691, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Reauthorization Act of 1998, which passed the House unanimously last month. In addition to reauthorizing NHTSA, it addresses the important issue of air bag safety and improves the protection of drivers, passengers, and children who are involved in motor vehicle crashes. These provisions will ultimately save lives. The conference report also addresses the issue of NHTSA lobbying. We agreed on a bipartisan basis to prohibit NHTSA from lobbying State and local officials, just as they are prohibited from lobbying Members of Congress. In closing, I would like to recognize the extraordinary effort that it took to bring this legislation to the floor today. Chairman Bilirakis, Chairman, Tauzin, and Ranking Member Dingell all worked very hard and on a bipartisan basis. I would also like to thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman Petri, as well as Ranking Members Oberstar and Rahall, for the high level of cooperation we received from the Transportation Committee. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the adoption of the conference report. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are pleased to bring to the House today is strong on mobility, strong on safety, strong on economic development. It sustains the economic expansion that our country is experiencing. It gives us thrust to continue the international competitiveness of the nation's economy. It is a balanced bill. It is strong on transportation, including all modes of transportation, transit, alternative transportation. It protects the environment, enhances safety, ensures fair treatment for construction and transit workers, for pedestrians, for bicyclists, for disadvantaged contractors, for people trying to end their dependence on welfare through the welfare to work provisions. Most importantly, it restores trust, the trust of the American people, to the Highway Trust Fund. It, with the guarantee provision we have included in this legislation, assures that we achieve in principle the goal we have sought in practice for so long, to take the trust fund off budget, but within the budget. This is no small accomplishment. We have been working since 1968, for 30 years, to bring the Highway Trust Fund back to the position where the revenues in are the revenues spent out and invested in the Nation's transportation needs. For the leadership that brought us to this point, I salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster). I like the name of the bill that passed the House, BESTEA, the Bud E. Shuster Transportation for All Eternity Act. And I salute my chairman for the leadership he has given us for the strong role that he played in the conference, and bringing back to this body [[Page H3947]] an extraordinarily proud piece of legislation. We have much to be proud of with this legislation. All of the points that I mentioned a moment ago can be expanded upon, but I think we can sum it up best with what the President said just moments ago. ``Let me say, this bill does show that fiscal responsibility and investing in our future go hand-in-hand toward preparing our people and our country for the next century. I want to thank Secretary Slater, Larry Stein, especially the Members of the economic team, for the hard work they did starting from a very difficult position to reduce the spending in this bill. If the Congress does in fact pass the bill as expected, I will be pleased to sign it into law.'' We would have liked a higher spending level. We would have liked many other provisions in this bill as we passed it in the House. But we bring back to you something that every Member of this body can take home to his or her district and stand up and be proud of and tell the American people we have done good as we approach the 21st Century, that that bridge to the 21st Century will not be a chimerical bridge, but it will be a bridge built on steel girders and concrete and asphalt and will take America into the 21st Century. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). He is, without question, I think one of the most effective chairs in this House, and he certainly knows how to run a railroad. I also have considerable respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the subcommittee chair for surface transportation. As far as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is concerned, my friend from the wrong side of the bridge in Minnesota, he and I vote against each other about, I think we voted against each other more in the past week on this issue than we have in all of the time we have been here. I have great respect and affection for him. But I stand here today because I believe it is important to recognize that there are certain principles which are being grossly violated by this bill that should not be violated. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota just said that there is something in this bill that every Member can take back home to their districts. That is certainly, certainly true. There are some 1,800 projects in this bill. To put that into perspective, in the entire history of the highway program, we have only had 1,022 projects for Members. In this bill, in one year, there will be 1,800. That is the most spectacular example of excess that I can recall. There is even in this bill a $120 million authorization for a highway in Canada. Now, I know a lot of citizens in a lot of States who would prefer that those dollars be spent in their own States. I did not know that Canada had become attached as another State, but evidently, despite that, we are going to spend money there any way. The main reason to oppose this bill is that it is simply a budget buster. As I understand it, it is $32 billion over the CBO baseline over 6 years, and as a consequence of that, to find ways to pay for that excess, the committee has taken, we are told, about $15 billion out of the hides of veterans' health care perhaps. They have also taken out $2 billion out of the title XX block grant. That is the program which pays for child care, for child protective services, for foster care, for home base services for the elderly, for services for at risk youth, for Meals on Wheels for the home bound. $2 billion coming out of that over three years. And then the bill says that for every year thereafter, there will be a continued reduction in that program. I do not believe that home bound senior citizens expect us to build highways by running over their needs, and I do not believe that veterans think we should do so either. I have two letters which I read earlier and I will read again a portion of them. The Paralyzed Veterans Association of America says as follows: ``It has been purported that veterans have now agreed to the offsets due to the inclusion of certain increases in other benefits. This is patently untrue. The conferees should reconsider their actions in using veterans funds as offsets to pay for transportation and highway projects that far exceed the levels established in last year's budget agreement.'' {time} 1700 The Disabled American Veterans urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question on this bill because of their objections to the veterans' cuts. It just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that while highways certainly deserve to be a top priority, they do not deserve to be the only priority, and we should not be funding concrete in another country. Certainly, we should not be paying for 1,800 special congressional projects by taking it out of the hides of veterans' health care and title 20 block grant, which is needed by our most needy and defenseless citizens. So that is why I will be offering, if I have the opportunity at the end of the bill, I will be offering a motion to recommit to at least eliminate the cuts for veterans that are used to finance a portion of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I salute the Chairman's leadership in this matter. Mr. Speaker, the true social safety net of this country is not made up of speeches delivered in this hall or even legislation passed in this hall. The true social safety net of this country is the productive capacity of the American people and the American economy. Passage of this legislation will enhance that productivity that will improve, thereby, the social safety net and the well-being of all Americans. I would join my colleagues in supporting this legislation that is backed by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Public Transit Association and the Representatives of America's Motorists, the AAA, the Senate of the United States by an 88- to-5 vote, and the President of the United States, who suggested the offsets that some of my colleagues deplore. But it has his support. It should from my colleagues. It is a good bill. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure. This bill provides the vital funds necessary to rebuild Michigan's crumbling roads, bridges, and interstates, and I congratulate and thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for their work. This legislation also includes provisions within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. They address important public health and safety matters, and do so in a manner that is fully bipartisan. I want to commend and thank Chairman Bliley, Mr. Tauzin, and Mr. Bilirakis for their efforts on these issues. H.R. 2400 contains provisions reauthorizing the activities of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The legislation contains the funding level requested by the Administration, and does two other important things. One, it establishes a rulemaking for the next generation of motor vehicle occupant protection systems. This is designed to address the tragic problems we've seen with the current generation of airbags. Second, the legislation corrects some flaws and anomalies in the formula used for calculating the domestic parts content of motor vehicles. This provision will give consumers more accurate information about the origin of their vehicles. H.R. 2400 contains one other provision of special note. It will give States and communities certainty regarding the implementation of the new national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. These legislative provisions do not change Administration policy, nor do they address fundamental questions regarding these standards and their impact. They simply ensure that the Administration's schedule for these standards is met and that the necessary monitoring data will be gathered expeditiously without imposing any financial burden on the States. In addition, we included language in the Statement of Managers to ensure that Administrator Browner carefully considers the recent recommendations of the National Research [[Page H3948]] Council regarding the national fine particle monitoring network which will be developed and deployed over the next two years. This group of independent scientists urged EPA to ensure that the plans for this monitoring program are thoroughly peer-reviewed at an early date, while such a review can still inform the monitoring-network design and operation. The Statement of Managers endorses this reasonable and prudent step and I fully expect EPA to take the necessary steps to ensure that all aspects of the development of this monitoring network are in fact subject to peer review. Beside making several minor technical changes, the Conferees made only one significant change to the original Inhofe Amendment as passed by the Senate. And that was to address an issue raised but not resolved by the Senate provision. Section 4102 not only calls for the establishment of a national network of fine particle monitors, it provides that areas will not be designated as nonattainment until States have the opportunity to review three years of data from these monitors. This guarantee was established by the President and adopted by EPA last summer. State submissions of programs to control fine particles are also delayed since they are triggered by the nonattainment designation process. However, EPA's proposed regional haze program could short-circuit this timing by requiring States to make decisions regarding the control of fine particles before the necessary technical information from the monitoring network is available. Why? Well, as Administrator Browner has testified: ``Like the new ambient air quality standards for fine particulates, the proposed rule for regional haze would similarly require the control of fine particulates.'' So since the two programs control the same pollutant and rest on the same technical information, even EPA has recognized that the two programs must be harmonized. To again quote Administrator Browner, ``it is our intention to manage the two together'' and ``not to have regional haze go first, but to actually combine them.'' These comments have been echoed by the Administrator and other EPA officials in other forums and in the Agency's official writings. However, there is a statutory glitch in EPA's efforts to harmonize the two programs. A provision in the Clean Air Act's visibility section requires State plans within one year after the visibility regulations are final. To address this statutory deadline, the Conferees added language to guarantee that the State submissions on regional haze will coincide with the State's fine particle submissions. As such, the provision implements EPA's stated policy regarding the timing issue. (I would add that the provision is not intended to endorse or ratify EPA's proposed regional haze program and the Conferees took no position on the legality or prudence of any portion of the proposed regulations.) Mr. Speaker, the Inhofe Amendment as modified by the Conferees represents a modest initial step to deal with the many issues raised by EPA's new air quality standards. I must promise with regret that this will not be the last time we will be before the House with legislation on this topic. Until that date, I urge members to support this first step. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who has spent such an enormous amount of time on this bill, and I congratulate him on his work. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this conference report on this most historic piece of legislation. For too long, this Nation has allowed its basic surface transportation system to deteriorate. For too long, we have witnessed unsafe road conditions contributing to the fatality and injury rate of the American public. And for too long, we have experienced our competitive posture in world commerce be adversely affected by an increasingly inefficient surface transportation network. Today, we are making an historic move that this shall be no more. This conference agreement to authorize Federal highway, highway safety, motor carrier and transit programs is the largest and most comprehensive surface transportation bills to be considered in the history of our Nation, and I am very proud of this legislation. I am proud of our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I am proud of our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). I am very proud of the staff that has worked virtually around the clock for the last 2 or 3 weeks to get this historic legislation to the floor of the House, and they deserve the highest words of praise as well. Indeed, in dollar terms, this legislation will provide over $200 billion during the course of a 6-year period for highway and transit facilities. However, there is much more than just dollars in this legislation. It transcends considerations of the concrete, the asphalt, the steel and stone. Indeed, what we are doing in this legislation is improving our standard of living for our children in generations to come. It entails a type of legacy that we wish to leave future generations of Americans. It is an investment in America's infrastructure finally and foremost, rather than throwing money overseas. So I approve of this legislation wholeheartedly. We address safety. We address the environment. We address flexibility. We truly have an intermodal piece of legislation here, and I commend it to my colleagues for passage. Safety. We are all concerned about the safety of our children and our families. This bill contains an impressive array of weapons to combat unsafe road conditions, and importantly, unsafe drivers. Road rage is on the rise in the country. Tempers flare as drivers are gridlocked in traffic snarls. This bill will bring to bear an better financed Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program that contains the keys to unlock that gridlock and sooth those flaring tempers. With this bill, we are also escalating the war against drunk driving, including through a $500 million arsenal of incentives to the States to lower blood alcohol content standards. The environment. Transportation is about much more than roads, bridges and highways. It is also about alternative means of moving people from place to place. The Transportation Enhancements Programs will experience a significant increase in funding for an expanded list of eligible projects that will serve to make the transportation experience more enjoyable for many Americans. Innovation. Americans are innovative by nature, and this bill rewards that attitude in terms of both technology and financing. Under it, intelligent transportation systems, maglev and other new transportation initiatives will be further advanced, and indeed, taken past the demonstration stage and placed into every day use. Further, this legislation further promotes innovative financing approaches to transportation problems through a wide range of tools. And finally, a promise. A promise that will now be fulfilled to the people of the Appalachian Region more than 30 years ago. For the first time, the Appalachian Highway System will be fully incorporated into the Nation's highway program and financed by trust fund revenues. This will provide a secure and dedicated source of funding for the unfinished segments of the Appalachian Development Highway System, opening impoverished areas greater accessibility and subsequent economic development. In this regard, the inclusion of this program in this legislation is due to the efforts of West Virginia's senior Senator, Robert C. Byrd. And it will stand as his lasting legacy. In conclusion, to the American motorist, know this. The taxes we pay every time we gas-up our vehicles will no longer be used for non- transportation purposes. This bill contains an iron-clad, rock-ribbed, copper-riveted guarantee that fuel tax revenues will be spent on highway and transit improvements. We have built a fire wall around these revenues from which there will be no diversion. My colleagues, I would be remiss if I did not express our appreciation of the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Bud Shuster, and for our ranking Member, Jim Oberstar, for their tireless efforts on behalf of securing fairness, equity and justice in the federal highway and transit programs as exemplified by this conference agreement. These two gentlemen, along with Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri and myself, worked to uphold the principles espoused in the House bill during our meetings with the other body. I must also commend the Secretary of Transportation. During the course of our deliberations over this legislation, Rodney Slater did not sit idly in his office. He rolled up his sleeves and got down to work with us to seek resolution of many, many difficult issues and decisions that were addressed. I urge approval by the House of this conference report. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. [[Page H3949]] At this time, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. When this measure was before the House last month, it included a provision which stated that savings from veterans' programs should not be used to offset any costs associated with the bill. The House also passed a second provision which I supported, instructing House negotiators not to use funds from changes in veterans' programs to pay for these projects. The conference report ignores those provisions for the most part. Mr. Speaker, over the past dozen years, the VA Committee has reported legislation changing veterans' programs and saving the American taxpayer over $12 billion. In addition, Congress has reversed veterans' spending created by courts in the Davenport and Gardner cases, leading to an additional billion dollars or more in savings. When the Administration suggested that we repeal the windfall created by the VA General Counsel decision that requires the VA to compensate veterans with tobacco-related illnesses, the Administration projected that the repeal would save $17 billion over five years. The Administration also suggested that we spend only $1.5 billion of that savings to enhance neglected programs serving veterans. Unfortunately, the conferees have handed the Administration a victory by using all but $1.6 billion of the $17 billion in savings for purposes other than veterans' programs. It's not right that less than 10 percent of those savings is being put back into the budget for veterans. While this $1.6 billion will be used to improve some of our highest priority veterans' programs, we should do better. It's not right Mr. Speaker--vote against the conference report that takes too much from veterans' programs. Mr. Speaker, for the information of my colleagues, I am including the following information on the issue of VA disability compensation for tobacco-related disabilities. I also include an explanation of the proposed increase in benefits for veterans going to school under the Montgomery GI Bill and other benefit enhancements. Background and Discussion Legislative History of Provision Repealing VA Tobacco Compensation Authority In January 1993, the General Counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Mr. James A. Endicott, Jr., signed a memorandum addressed to the Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) which had as its subject ``Entitlement to Benefits Based upon Tobacco Use While in Service.'' This memorandum was Office of General Counsel Precedent Opinion 2-93. Under applicable Department regulation (38 C.F.R. 14.507(b)), a ``precedent opinion'' is one that ``necessitates regulatory change, interprets a statute or regulation as a matter of first impression, clarifies or modifies a prior opinion, or is otherwise of significance beyond the matter at issue.'' A precedent opinion is: ``Binding on Department officials and employees in subsequent matters involving a legal issue decided in the precedent opinion, unless there has been a material change in a controlling statute or regulation or the opinion has been overruled or modified by a subsequent precedent opinion or judicial decision.'' The precedent opinion arose in the context of an appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals by the surviving spouse of a veteran who died of adenocarcinoma of the lung and who had smoked a pack and a half of cigarettes per day for over forty years. In the opinion, the General Counsel held that the BVA could determine whether nicotine dependence may be considered a disease or injury for disability compensation purposes. It also held that ``direct service connection of disability or death may be established if the evidence establishes that injury or disease resulted from tobacco use in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service'' and that ``tobacco use does not constitute drug abuse within the meaning of statutes'' prohibiting VA from considering drug or alcohol abuse as occurring in line of duty. A subsequent decision by the BVA determined that the veteran's tobacco use while in service was an ``event or exposure'' that resulted some years after service in disease that produced disability and death. Accordingly, the claim of the surviving spouse was allowed. The Compensation and Pension Service of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) advised VBA field adjudicative units in a March 4, 1993 conference call to defer action on claims involving the use of tobacco products during active service. This moratorium on action lasted for four years until a January 28, 1997 directive was issued giving field adjudicative units instructions on how to process tobacco- related claims. In May of 1997, VA General Counsel Mary Lou Keener issued another precedent opinion addressing the circumstances in which VA could determine that tobacco- related disability or death that was secondary to in-service tobacco use was service connected for VA benefit purposes. That opinion held that if: 1) nicotine dependence could be considered a disease for purposes of laws governing veterans' benefits; 2) the veteran acquired a dependence on nicotine in service; and 3) that dependence was the proximate cause of disability or death, then service connection could be established on a secondary basis. In May of 1997, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown transmitted a legislative proposal on behalf of the Administration to terminate the VA's authority to compensate or otherwise award benefits to a veteran for diseases or deaths attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by a veteran during military service. According to Secretary Brown's letter: ``This amendment is consistent with the 1990 budget reconciliation act, in which Congress prohibited compensation for disabilities which are the result of veterans' abuse of alcohol and drugs. This was fiscally responsible action which enhanced the integrity of our compensation programs, and our proposal regarding tobacco use is offered in that same spirit. In addition, claims based upon tobacco-related disorders present medical and legal issues which could impede ongoing efforts to speed claim processing by placing significant additional demands on the adjudicative system. This provision would not preclude establishment of service connection for disability or death from a disease or injury which became manifest or was aggravated during active service or became manifest to the requisite degree of disability during any applicable presumptive period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of title 38, United States Code. This amendment would apply to claims filed after the date of its enactment.'' The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Benefits held a hearing on May 14, 1997 on the VA's proposal. Testimony was received from veterans organizations and the Department. The Subcommittee made no recommendation on the proposed legislation. In a letter dated September 19, 1997, (copy attached) VA Secretary-Designate Hershel W. Gober urged the Congress to take action on the VA's legislative proposal regarding tobacco-related benefits. In this same letter, Secretary- Designate Gober highlighted a new cost estimate of the impact of processing and paying tobacco-related claims. According to the Secretary-Designate, if VA could process all claims immediately, the cost of compensating veterans would be $4.4 billion in fiscal year 1998 and $23.8 billion over five years. It was estimated that VA could receive 540,000 tobacco-related claims, and that this would increase the VA's backlog of pending claims to over 1.5 million in fiscal year 1998, and that average processing time would increase from 113 days to 312 days. A letter dated March 17, 1998 (copy attached) from VA Acting Secretary Togo West reaffirmed the Administration's position on compensation benefits for tobacco-related disabilities. It also noted that according to the President's budget submission ``enactment of VA's proposal would result in FY '99 savings of $741 million and five-year savings of $16.9 billion.'' In response to a question about the intent of the Administration's proposal, Acting General Counsel Robert E. Coy clarified the intent of the legislative language with regard to veterans with diseases that could be attributable to tobacco use or some other cause. Mr. Coy stated in his March 19, 1998 letter (copy attached) that: ``The Administration's proposal would in no way affect veterans' ability to establish service connection on the basis of any legal presumptions authorizing VA benefits. The Administration has proposed only that disabilities or deaths may not be considered service connected ``on the basis that'' the underlying diseases are ``attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by the veterans during service.'' The effect of enactment of this proposal would be that if the only manner in which a disability or death could be considered service connected is ``on the basis that'' it is due to either the veteran's tobacco use or nicotine dependence in service, that avenue for establishing service connection would be foreclosed.'' On March 30, 1998, Acting Secretary West transmitted a revised draft of its proposed legislation to the Congress (copy attached). Acting Secretary (now Secretary) West noted that: ``Like the consumption of alcohol, the use of tobacco products is not a requirement of military service. Most veterans, like most Americans, do not use tobacco products. It is inappropriate to compensate those veterans who do use tobacco, and their survivors, under a program developed for veterans who became disabled in service to our nation. ``In the debate which has ensued since our proposal of last May, we have heard no persuasive argument for why it should fall upon the government to compensate veterans for, or treat on a service-connected basis, disabilities first arising postservice whose only connections (sic) to service are the veterans' own tobacco use. We do not believe the American people consider these to be the government's responsibility. (emphasis added).'' In the VA Committee's report to the Committee on the Budget on the budget proposed for veterans' programs for fiscal year 1999, the Committee expressed the following view on the Administration's proposal: [[Page H3950]] ``The Committee concurs with former Secretary Brown's concerns about the integrity of the compensation system. The Committee also believes that paying compensation to veterans for tobacco-related illnesses goes beyond the government's responsibility. There is a significant philosophical difference between service-connected compensation and other disability programs such as Social Security or the VA pension program which make no distinctions based on when a disability or illness occurs or is first diagnosed. Service-connected compensation, on the other hand, is based on the presumption that a person would not have the illness or disability save for some event or circumstance beyond the person's control. A policy of paying compensation for tobacco-related illnesses absolves the veteran of personal responsibility for his or her choices about tobacco use. In the past, Congress has determined that the individual, not the federal government, is responsible for illnesses which are related to the use of alcohol or drugs. Thus, a policy of paying benefits for illnesses related to the use of tobacco would be inconsistent with these prior determinations. ``The Committee is also very concerned that the projected annual caseload of 540,000 tobacco-related claims would overload the adjudication system and lengthen the already- too-long processing time for all types of claims. VA estimated in 1997 that processing time for an original compensation claim would increase from 113 days to 312 days. ``To reflect the nation's commitment to its veterans, the Committee will recommend legislation that will use all of the savings from enacting a limitation on compensation for tobacco-related illnesses to improve a wide range of programs. These are programs affecting our most disabled veterans, surviving dependents, separating service members, unemployed and under-employed veterans, and those seeking an education or a home.'' Section 8203. Twenty percent increase in rates of basic educational assistance under Montgomery GI Bill. This provision would increase the current Montgomery GI Bill basic rate from $440 per month to $528 per month (chapter 30) beginning October 1, 1998, and the basic rate for the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance (chapter 1606). This is a 20 percent increase and follows the Administration's proposal. Section 8204. Increase in assistance amount for specially adapted housing. This section increases the adaptive housing grants for severely disabled veterans from $38,000 to $43,000. The VA offers a one-time Specially Adapted Housing grant to certain severely disabled veterans so that they may purchase a home specially adapted to their needs or make modifications to current residences. The last increase was 10 years ago. Section 8205. Increase in amount of assistance for automobile and adaptive equipment for certain disabled veterans. This increases the auto allowance for severely disabled veterans from $5,500 to $8,000 to account for the rising cost of automobiles. The VA provides a one-time payment toward the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance to certain veterans with a service-connected loss of one or both hands or feet or permanent loss of use, or permanent impairment of vision in both eyes. This would be the first increase since 1988. Section 8206. Increase in aid and attendance rates for veterans eligible for pension. This section increases the monthly pension benefit by $50 for severely disabled veterans in need of the full time aid and attendance of another person. This increase is intended to assist the increasing number of low-income veterans who will need alternatives to nursing home care over the next 15 years. Section 8207. Eligibility of certain remarried surviving spouses for reinstatement of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation upon termination of that remarriage. This provision will allow all surviving spouses of veterans who die from a service-connected disability to resume their Dependency and Indemnity Compensation if their subsequent remarriage ends. This repeals an OBRA 1990 provision. Section 8208. Extension of prior revision to offset rule for Department of Defense Special Separation Benefit program. The 1997 DOD Authorization Act prohibited VA compensation offsets on the gross amount of special separation bonuses (SSB) for those separating after September 30, 1996. This section would make that provision in the 1997 DOD Authorization Act retroactive to 1991. If a bonus recipient subsequently qualifies for VA disability compensation, current law requires VA to offset the entire amount of SSB, including amounts withheld as income tax. ____ The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, September 19, 1997. Hon. Bob Stump, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: It is because of my deep concern about the impact that tobacco-related compensation could have on the integrity of the entire compensation system, coupled with the fiscal impact, that I am writing you to encourage your action on the VA legislative proposal regarding tobacco- related service connection. I am also concerned that this sizable influx of claims into our system will so significantly increase our backlog that veterans with non- tobacco related conditions will experience intolerable delays in the processing of their claims. These concerns are made eminently clear in our official estimate of the potential impact of compensating veterans for tobacco-related conditions which is transmitted with this letter. This is an extremely complex estimate--one which has been taken us considerable time to develop. Contributing to its complexity is the number of assumptions that had to be made about veterans' health and mortality, veterans' smoking behavior, and most significantly, the rate at which veterans' tobacco-related compensation claims may be anticipated. I believe that the assistance provided us by Jeffrey Harris, MD, Ph.D., a nationally, known expert in the area of costs associated with tobacco-related diseases, was critical to informing our decisions. Dr. Harris' report is included as part of this package. Although some of the many assumptions in our calculations could produce differing results, any reasonable calculation would know just how big an issue tobacco-related compensation is for VA, and for the Nation. I want to highlight some significant points about the estimated cost and workload impact of tobacco-related compensation. If we could process all claims immediately, we believe that compensating veterans and survivors could cost an estimated $4.4 billion in Fiscal Year 1998 and $23.8 billion over the next five years. These estimates do not include the cost of benefits to survivors of already deceased veterans. Realistically, we estimate that while we may receive over 540,000 tobacco-related claims, we will not be able to process them upon receipt. The backlog of all VA disability claims will increase from current 465,000 to over 1.5 million in Fiscal Year 1998, and increase steadily to over 2 million in Fiscal Year 2000. At the same time, the processing time of original claims will deteriorate from the current 113 days to 312 days. Because of the backlog, the actual tobacco benefits paid will likely be $40 million in the first year and $1.9 billion over the next five years unless there is a significant reallocation of resources that would permit dramatic changes in the Veterans Benefits Administration's information technology and infrastructure, and allow for massive hiring and training of new VA employees. I appreciate your patience in waiting for this estimate. We are also examining the impact of tobacco-related compensation on the VA health care system. Clearly, the service connection of substantial numbers of veterans for tobacco-related conditions that in most cases have intense and costly medical treatment associated with them has the potential for large numbers of newly eligible, high priority veterans to seek health care from VA. I hope you will agree with me that the enormity of the impact on the claims backlog and on timeless of processing as well the fiscal impact, punctuate the critical need for prompt enactment of that legislation. I will be happy to personally discuss this with you, and VA staff are available to provide further explanation to Committee staff as desired. I think that these estimates clearly explain why we should all be concerned about the implications of tobacco-related compensation. I look forward to the Committee's prompt action on the proposed legislation to remedy this situation. Please let me know if we can provide additional information. Sincerely, Hershel W. Gober, Secretary-Designate. ____ Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, March 17, 1998. Hon. Bob Stump, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: As you and your colleagues on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee make final preparations to submit your Fiscal Year 1999 budgetary views and estimates to the House Budget Committee, I am taking this opportunity to highlight and reaffirm the Administration's position on compensation benefits for tobacco-related disabilities. VA has proposed legislation to preclude service-connected benefit eligibility based upon diseases which first arise after service (and after any post-service presumptive period) if their only connection to service is the veterans' own use of tobacco products. VA's proposal would not preclude service connection for tobacco-related diseases actually manifesting themselves in service or within presumptive periods in law, and would apply only to claims filed after the date of enactment. The Department's position is based upon several considerations. First, the responsibility to compensate veterans for diseases whose connection to service is the veterans' own tobacco use--in some cases only briefly--while in service, should not rest with the Government. Second, we believe that providing benefits in these cases exceeds the American public's sense of the Government's obligations to veterans, and so threatens to undermine support for VA programs. Third, if projections regarding the magnitude of future tobacco-related claims--perhaps as many as 540,000 in a year--prove anywhere near correct, without our legislation VA's claims system could be so overwhelmed as to seriously impair its ability to process claims of any kind in a timely manner. As reflected in the President's FY '99 budget submission, enactment of VA's proposal would result in FY '99 savings of $741 million [[Page H3951]] and five-year savings of $16.9 billion. We appreciate your consideration of our views on this critical issue. Sincerely, Togo D. West, Jr., Acting Secretary. ____ DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Office of the General Counsel Washington DC, March 1, 1998. Carl Commenator, Esq., Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Commenator. You have requested that we provide, as a technical service, an explanation as to how the Administration's proposal to restrict service connection for certain tobacco-related disabilities and deaths would, if enacted, affect claimants' ability to establish service connection under certain presumptions in law and regulation. Specifically, you referenced a number of conditions presumed to be service connected if suffered by certain veterans exposed to ionizing radiation or herbicides I service. The short answer is that the Administration's proposal would in no way affect veterans' ability to establish service connection on the basis on any legal presumptions authorizing VA benefits. The Administration has proposed only that disabilities or deaths may not be considered service connected ``on the basis that'' the underlying diseases are ``attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by the veteran during service''. The effect of enactment of this proposal would be that if the only manner in which a disability or death could be considered service connected is ``on the basis that'' it is due to either the veteran's tobacco use or nicotine dependence in service, that avenue for establishing service connection would be foreclosed. The new Sec. 1103(b) of title 38, United States Code, as proposed in the Administration's bill, would specifically provide that this change in law would in no way preclude establishing service connection on the basis of the presumptions authorized under Sec. Sec. 1112 and 1116 of title 38: Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as precluding the establishment of service connection for disability or death from a disease or injury which . . . . became manifest to the requisite degree of disability during any applicable presumptive period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of this title. In other words, if a disability or death could be presumed service connected on the basis of the various provisions of sections 1112 and 1116, which of course include presumptions for certain radiation-exposed and herbicide-exposed veterans, the proposed limitation on establishing service connection ``on the basis of'' tobacco use in service would have no preclusive effect at all. For example, as authorized by Sec. 1112(c), specified cancers may be presumed service connected if suffered by certain radiation-exposed veterans. If a veteran could qualify for service connection under such a presumption, as the Administration's tobacco legislation plainly states, that service connection and resulting benefit eligibility would be unaffected by enactment of the legislation. The same is true for all other presumptions in law, including the herbicide presumptions for respiratory cancers and other illnesses authorized by Sec. 1116 of title 38. The result of enactment of our legislation would be to simply restore the manner and method by which VA adjudicated claims prior to issuance of the two General Counsel opinion on tobacco use and service connection. I hope the foregoing is fully responsive to your request. Sincerely yours, Robert E. Coy, Acting General Counsel. ____ Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, March 30, 1998. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is a draft bill, the ``Veterans Tobacco Amendments of 1998'', which I ask be referred to the appropriate committee for prompt consideration and enactment. It would relieve the Government of an unjustified liability for certain postservice health effects of veterans' tobacco use in service. On May 9, 1997, VA submitted to Congress a draft bill whose provisions included a proposal bar to establishing service connection for disabilities or deaths if their only relationship to service were the veterans' inservice nicotine dependence or use of tobacco products. The enclosed draft is substantively identical to section 105 of the bill VA offered last year, introduced in the Senate as S. 987. Our Nation has an enduring obligation to those who, because of serving in defense of our freedoms, become disabled or die. We at VA are privileged to be the ones who deliver on that obligation. However, Congress has recognized the appropriateness of boundaries to the compensation program. This bill is consistent with the 1990 budget reconciliation act, in which Congress prohibited payment of disability benefits for illnesses based solely on use of alcohol or drugs during military service. Like the consumption of alcohol, the use of tobacco products is not a requirement of military service. Most veterans, like most Americans, do not use tobacco products. It is inappropriate to compensate those veterans who do use tobacco, and their survivors, under a program developed for veterans who became disabled in service to our nation. In the debate which has ensued since our proposal of last May, we have heard no persuasive argument for why it should fall upon the government to compensate veterans for, or treat on a service-connected basis, disabilities first arising postservice whose only connections to service are the veterans' own tobacco use. We do not believe the American people consider these to be the government's responsibility. However, our proposal would not preclude service connection for tobacco-related disabilities or deaths from diseases which actually manifest themselves during service or within any applicable presumptive period, and to this extent our bill is less preclusive than the alcohol- and drug-abuse proscription. Our proposal also is limited in its reach to claims filed with VA after its enactment. Thus, veterans and survivors currently receiving these benefits and veterans and survivors filing claims prior to enactment would not be affected by the change. We are privileged to serve as stewards for veterans programs, which deservedly enjoy broad public support. With that stewardship, however, comes a responsibility to recommend appropriate changes when we sense they may become imperiled by something which could undermine public support for them. The estimated influx of tobacco-related claims-- perhaps as many as 540,000 in the next year--threatens to overwhelm our adjudication system and result in unconscionable delays for all VA claimants. Because of the enormous implications it could have in terms of both costs and impact on claims processing, the current requirement that VA consider these smoking-related disabilities and deaths to be service connected carries the potential for just such programmatic harm. This legislation would affect direct spending; therefore, it is subject to the pay-as-you-go (paygo) requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990. As reflected in the President's Budget for FY 1999, enactment of this proposal would result in paygo savings of $741 million during FY 1999 and $16.9 billion over the period FYs 1999- 2003. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this draft bill to the Congress, and that its enactment would be in accord with the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, Togo D. West, Jr., Acting Secretary. ____ A Bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that service connection for certain disabilities or deaths may not be established solely on the basis of inservice tobacco use or nicotine dependence. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Tobacco Amendments of 1998''. SECTION 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST VETERANS BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY BASED SOLELY UPON TOBACCO USE IN SERVICE. (a) Service Connection.--Subchapter 1 of chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: ``Sec. 1103. Special provisions relating to claims based upon effects of tobacco products. ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a veteran's disability or death shall not be considered to have resulted from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval or air service for purposes of this title on the basis that it resulted from injury or disease attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by the veteran during the veteran's service. ``(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as precluding the establishment of service connection for disability or death from a disease or injury which is otherwise shown to have been incurred or aggravated in active military, naval or air service or which became manifest to the requisite degree of disability during any applicable presumption period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of this title.''. (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 11 of title 38, United State Code, is amended by adding the following new item after the item relating to section 1102: ``1103. Special provisions relating to claims based upon effects of tobacco products.''. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall apply to claims received by the Secretary after the date of enactment of this Act. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr.Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has indicated that he is not supporting this piece of legislation. I heard my colleague say that this is a social safety net. Well, what we need to know that just got paved over are low-income, disabled veterans who had a funding in this bill. It was only $500 million, but it was a chance to create a permanent program for low- income, disabled veterans to get what we said they deserve. [[Page H3952]] Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to enter into a colloquy is that if they are not allowed to use the tobacco money, is it not true that there are a number of excess acres and VA sites around the country, my understanding is, on Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills? How ironic that this land is not being used for the veterans, but they want to preserve it for a greenbelt, and yet we are taking veterans' money to pave over areas for highways. Would the Chairman look at the exces

Summary:

All articles in House section

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2400, TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
(House of Representatives - May 22, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3945-H3965] CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2400, TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the House Resolution 449, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2400), to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 449, the conference report is considered as having been read. [[Page H3946]] (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the House of today.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). {time} 1645 Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, under the assumption that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is in favor of the conference report, I rise in opposition to the conference report and pursuant to rule XXXVIII, I request one-third of the time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is the gentleman from Minnesota opposed to the bill? Mr. OBERSTAR. No, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will control one-third of the time, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) will control one-third of the time, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) will control one-third of the time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Henry Clay, the great compromiser, once said the good thing about compromise is that for everything you give up, you get something in return. And, indeed, that is where we are today. We bring back from our conference with the Senate a compromise. Now, if I could waive a magic wand, there are several things in this bill I would do differently. So we do bring a compromise to the floor, but it is a good compromise. It is more than a good compromise, Mr. Speaker. It is an historic piece of legislation. It is an historic piece of legislation because we put the trust back in the transportation trust funds. This is an historic piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because now the American people will know that trust is being put back in the transportation trust fund. The revenue they pay, the gas tax which they pay into the transportation trust fund, will be available to be spent on transportation purposes. Indeed, while I and many others in this Chamber would have preferred to take the trust funds off budget, the compromise we reached is a good one, it is a solid one, it is a guarantee, an ironclad guarantee, that sets aside firewalls on the revenue coming into the transportation trust fund so that that money is available to be spent. So when the average American drives up to the gas pump and pays his 18.3-cent Federal tax, that money is free to be spent. It is a guarantee, it is an ironclad guarantee. This is an historic matter in and of itself, and that is one of the major reasons why this legislation is so important to America. What it means, if we do spend the revenue going into the trust fund, and not a penny more, only the revenue going into the trust fund, means that this bill over six years can guarantee $200,500,000,000 spending, because that is the revenue projected to go into the trust fund. Should there be more revenue going into the trust fund, that money will be available to be spent. Should there be less revenue going into the trust fund, then we will have to reduce the expenditures. It is fair, it is equitable, and it is keeping faith with the American people. This legislation is going to save, the experts tell me, approximately 4,000 lives a year, not only because of the safety provisions we have in it, but because about 30 percent of our 42,000 highway fatalities each year are caused as a result of bad roads. As we improve the roads, we save lives. Another very significant feature to this legislation is that the donor States will now get 90.5 percent minimum allocation guaranteed on the formulas. This is better than the guarantee in either the Senate or the House bill. Also, we have streamlining provisions in here which make it more easy for the States to proceed giving the various groups their opportunity to express themselves, but to get highways and transit systems built more expeditiously so we can gain the increased productivity, convenience and safety that goes with it. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to emphasize that just a few minutes ago the Senate passed this conference report by a vote of 88 to 5, and this afternoon the President of the United States said, ``I will be pleased to sign it into law.'' So we bring to Members now T-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and urge its passage. Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I rise today in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 2400, the TEA-21 Act, which addresses a number of important environmental and safety issues that were committed to the attention of the Committee on Commerce. As requested by the States, the conference report provides certainty regarding EPA's schedule for implementing the new ozone and PM air standards. The conference report also ensures that EPA will keep its promise to harmonize the schedule of its regional haze program and its promise to pay for PM monitors. To ensure that EPA uses the best science possible, the conference report directs the EPA Administrator to consider recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences. These provisions enjoyed wide support from the States and others, and I ask unanimous consent to include in the record three letters of support. The conference report also includes many of the provisions contained in H.R. 2691, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Reauthorization Act of 1998, which passed the House unanimously last month. In addition to reauthorizing NHTSA, it addresses the important issue of air bag safety and improves the protection of drivers, passengers, and children who are involved in motor vehicle crashes. These provisions will ultimately save lives. The conference report also addresses the issue of NHTSA lobbying. We agreed on a bipartisan basis to prohibit NHTSA from lobbying State and local officials, just as they are prohibited from lobbying Members of Congress. In closing, I would like to recognize the extraordinary effort that it took to bring this legislation to the floor today. Chairman Bilirakis, Chairman, Tauzin, and Ranking Member Dingell all worked very hard and on a bipartisan basis. I would also like to thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman Petri, as well as Ranking Members Oberstar and Rahall, for the high level of cooperation we received from the Transportation Committee. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the adoption of the conference report. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are pleased to bring to the House today is strong on mobility, strong on safety, strong on economic development. It sustains the economic expansion that our country is experiencing. It gives us thrust to continue the international competitiveness of the nation's economy. It is a balanced bill. It is strong on transportation, including all modes of transportation, transit, alternative transportation. It protects the environment, enhances safety, ensures fair treatment for construction and transit workers, for pedestrians, for bicyclists, for disadvantaged contractors, for people trying to end their dependence on welfare through the welfare to work provisions. Most importantly, it restores trust, the trust of the American people, to the Highway Trust Fund. It, with the guarantee provision we have included in this legislation, assures that we achieve in principle the goal we have sought in practice for so long, to take the trust fund off budget, but within the budget. This is no small accomplishment. We have been working since 1968, for 30 years, to bring the Highway Trust Fund back to the position where the revenues in are the revenues spent out and invested in the Nation's transportation needs. For the leadership that brought us to this point, I salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster). I like the name of the bill that passed the House, BESTEA, the Bud E. Shuster Transportation for All Eternity Act. And I salute my chairman for the leadership he has given us for the strong role that he played in the conference, and bringing back to this body [[Page H3947]] an extraordinarily proud piece of legislation. We have much to be proud of with this legislation. All of the points that I mentioned a moment ago can be expanded upon, but I think we can sum it up best with what the President said just moments ago. ``Let me say, this bill does show that fiscal responsibility and investing in our future go hand-in-hand toward preparing our people and our country for the next century. I want to thank Secretary Slater, Larry Stein, especially the Members of the economic team, for the hard work they did starting from a very difficult position to reduce the spending in this bill. If the Congress does in fact pass the bill as expected, I will be pleased to sign it into law.'' We would have liked a higher spending level. We would have liked many other provisions in this bill as we passed it in the House. But we bring back to you something that every Member of this body can take home to his or her district and stand up and be proud of and tell the American people we have done good as we approach the 21st Century, that that bridge to the 21st Century will not be a chimerical bridge, but it will be a bridge built on steel girders and concrete and asphalt and will take America into the 21st Century. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). He is, without question, I think one of the most effective chairs in this House, and he certainly knows how to run a railroad. I also have considerable respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the subcommittee chair for surface transportation. As far as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is concerned, my friend from the wrong side of the bridge in Minnesota, he and I vote against each other about, I think we voted against each other more in the past week on this issue than we have in all of the time we have been here. I have great respect and affection for him. But I stand here today because I believe it is important to recognize that there are certain principles which are being grossly violated by this bill that should not be violated. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota just said that there is something in this bill that every Member can take back home to their districts. That is certainly, certainly true. There are some 1,800 projects in this bill. To put that into perspective, in the entire history of the highway program, we have only had 1,022 projects for Members. In this bill, in one year, there will be 1,800. That is the most spectacular example of excess that I can recall. There is even in this bill a $120 million authorization for a highway in Canada. Now, I know a lot of citizens in a lot of States who would prefer that those dollars be spent in their own States. I did not know that Canada had become attached as another State, but evidently, despite that, we are going to spend money there any way. The main reason to oppose this bill is that it is simply a budget buster. As I understand it, it is $32 billion over the CBO baseline over 6 years, and as a consequence of that, to find ways to pay for that excess, the committee has taken, we are told, about $15 billion out of the hides of veterans' health care perhaps. They have also taken out $2 billion out of the title XX block grant. That is the program which pays for child care, for child protective services, for foster care, for home base services for the elderly, for services for at risk youth, for Meals on Wheels for the home bound. $2 billion coming out of that over three years. And then the bill says that for every year thereafter, there will be a continued reduction in that program. I do not believe that home bound senior citizens expect us to build highways by running over their needs, and I do not believe that veterans think we should do so either. I have two letters which I read earlier and I will read again a portion of them. The Paralyzed Veterans Association of America says as follows: ``It has been purported that veterans have now agreed to the offsets due to the inclusion of certain increases in other benefits. This is patently untrue. The conferees should reconsider their actions in using veterans funds as offsets to pay for transportation and highway projects that far exceed the levels established in last year's budget agreement.'' {time} 1700 The Disabled American Veterans urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question on this bill because of their objections to the veterans' cuts. It just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that while highways certainly deserve to be a top priority, they do not deserve to be the only priority, and we should not be funding concrete in another country. Certainly, we should not be paying for 1,800 special congressional projects by taking it out of the hides of veterans' health care and title 20 block grant, which is needed by our most needy and defenseless citizens. So that is why I will be offering, if I have the opportunity at the end of the bill, I will be offering a motion to recommit to at least eliminate the cuts for veterans that are used to finance a portion of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I salute the Chairman's leadership in this matter. Mr. Speaker, the true social safety net of this country is not made up of speeches delivered in this hall or even legislation passed in this hall. The true social safety net of this country is the productive capacity of the American people and the American economy. Passage of this legislation will enhance that productivity that will improve, thereby, the social safety net and the well-being of all Americans. I would join my colleagues in supporting this legislation that is backed by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Public Transit Association and the Representatives of America's Motorists, the AAA, the Senate of the United States by an 88- to-5 vote, and the President of the United States, who suggested the offsets that some of my colleagues deplore. But it has his support. It should from my colleagues. It is a good bill. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure. This bill provides the vital funds necessary to rebuild Michigan's crumbling roads, bridges, and interstates, and I congratulate and thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for their work. This legislation also includes provisions within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. They address important public health and safety matters, and do so in a manner that is fully bipartisan. I want to commend and thank Chairman Bliley, Mr. Tauzin, and Mr. Bilirakis for their efforts on these issues. H.R. 2400 contains provisions reauthorizing the activities of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The legislation contains the funding level requested by the Administration, and does two other important things. One, it establishes a rulemaking for the next generation of motor vehicle occupant protection systems. This is designed to address the tragic problems we've seen with the current generation of airbags. Second, the legislation corrects some flaws and anomalies in the formula used for calculating the domestic parts content of motor vehicles. This provision will give consumers more accurate information about the origin of their vehicles. H.R. 2400 contains one other provision of special note. It will give States and communities certainty regarding the implementation of the new national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. These legislative provisions do not change Administration policy, nor do they address fundamental questions regarding these standards and their impact. They simply ensure that the Administration's schedule for these standards is met and that the necessary monitoring data will be gathered expeditiously without imposing any financial burden on the States. In addition, we included language in the Statement of Managers to ensure that Administrator Browner carefully considers the recent recommendations of the National Research [[Page H3948]] Council regarding the national fine particle monitoring network which will be developed and deployed over the next two years. This group of independent scientists urged EPA to ensure that the plans for this monitoring program are thoroughly peer-reviewed at an early date, while such a review can still inform the monitoring-network design and operation. The Statement of Managers endorses this reasonable and prudent step and I fully expect EPA to take the necessary steps to ensure that all aspects of the development of this monitoring network are in fact subject to peer review. Beside making several minor technical changes, the Conferees made only one significant change to the original Inhofe Amendment as passed by the Senate. And that was to address an issue raised but not resolved by the Senate provision. Section 4102 not only calls for the establishment of a national network of fine particle monitors, it provides that areas will not be designated as nonattainment until States have the opportunity to review three years of data from these monitors. This guarantee was established by the President and adopted by EPA last summer. State submissions of programs to control fine particles are also delayed since they are triggered by the nonattainment designation process. However, EPA's proposed regional haze program could short-circuit this timing by requiring States to make decisions regarding the control of fine particles before the necessary technical information from the monitoring network is available. Why? Well, as Administrator Browner has testified: ``Like the new ambient air quality standards for fine particulates, the proposed rule for regional haze would similarly require the control of fine particulates.'' So since the two programs control the same pollutant and rest on the same technical information, even EPA has recognized that the two programs must be harmonized. To again quote Administrator Browner, ``it is our intention to manage the two together'' and ``not to have regional haze go first, but to actually combine them.'' These comments have been echoed by the Administrator and other EPA officials in other forums and in the Agency's official writings. However, there is a statutory glitch in EPA's efforts to harmonize the two programs. A provision in the Clean Air Act's visibility section requires State plans within one year after the visibility regulations are final. To address this statutory deadline, the Conferees added language to guarantee that the State submissions on regional haze will coincide with the State's fine particle submissions. As such, the provision implements EPA's stated policy regarding the timing issue. (I would add that the provision is not intended to endorse or ratify EPA's proposed regional haze program and the Conferees took no position on the legality or prudence of any portion of the proposed regulations.) Mr. Speaker, the Inhofe Amendment as modified by the Conferees represents a modest initial step to deal with the many issues raised by EPA's new air quality standards. I must promise with regret that this will not be the last time we will be before the House with legislation on this topic. Until that date, I urge members to support this first step. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who has spent such an enormous amount of time on this bill, and I congratulate him on his work. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this conference report on this most historic piece of legislation. For too long, this Nation has allowed its basic surface transportation system to deteriorate. For too long, we have witnessed unsafe road conditions contributing to the fatality and injury rate of the American public. And for too long, we have experienced our competitive posture in world commerce be adversely affected by an increasingly inefficient surface transportation network. Today, we are making an historic move that this shall be no more. This conference agreement to authorize Federal highway, highway safety, motor carrier and transit programs is the largest and most comprehensive surface transportation bills to be considered in the history of our Nation, and I am very proud of this legislation. I am proud of our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I am proud of our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). I am very proud of the staff that has worked virtually around the clock for the last 2 or 3 weeks to get this historic legislation to the floor of the House, and they deserve the highest words of praise as well. Indeed, in dollar terms, this legislation will provide over $200 billion during the course of a 6-year period for highway and transit facilities. However, there is much more than just dollars in this legislation. It transcends considerations of the concrete, the asphalt, the steel and stone. Indeed, what we are doing in this legislation is improving our standard of living for our children in generations to come. It entails a type of legacy that we wish to leave future generations of Americans. It is an investment in America's infrastructure finally and foremost, rather than throwing money overseas. So I approve of this legislation wholeheartedly. We address safety. We address the environment. We address flexibility. We truly have an intermodal piece of legislation here, and I commend it to my colleagues for passage. Safety. We are all concerned about the safety of our children and our families. This bill contains an impressive array of weapons to combat unsafe road conditions, and importantly, unsafe drivers. Road rage is on the rise in the country. Tempers flare as drivers are gridlocked in traffic snarls. This bill will bring to bear an better financed Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program that contains the keys to unlock that gridlock and sooth those flaring tempers. With this bill, we are also escalating the war against drunk driving, including through a $500 million arsenal of incentives to the States to lower blood alcohol content standards. The environment. Transportation is about much more than roads, bridges and highways. It is also about alternative means of moving people from place to place. The Transportation Enhancements Programs will experience a significant increase in funding for an expanded list of eligible projects that will serve to make the transportation experience more enjoyable for many Americans. Innovation. Americans are innovative by nature, and this bill rewards that attitude in terms of both technology and financing. Under it, intelligent transportation systems, maglev and other new transportation initiatives will be further advanced, and indeed, taken past the demonstration stage and placed into every day use. Further, this legislation further promotes innovative financing approaches to transportation problems through a wide range of tools. And finally, a promise. A promise that will now be fulfilled to the people of the Appalachian Region more than 30 years ago. For the first time, the Appalachian Highway System will be fully incorporated into the Nation's highway program and financed by trust fund revenues. This will provide a secure and dedicated source of funding for the unfinished segments of the Appalachian Development Highway System, opening impoverished areas greater accessibility and subsequent economic development. In this regard, the inclusion of this program in this legislation is due to the efforts of West Virginia's senior Senator, Robert C. Byrd. And it will stand as his lasting legacy. In conclusion, to the American motorist, know this. The taxes we pay every time we gas-up our vehicles will no longer be used for non- transportation purposes. This bill contains an iron-clad, rock-ribbed, copper-riveted guarantee that fuel tax revenues will be spent on highway and transit improvements. We have built a fire wall around these revenues from which there will be no diversion. My colleagues, I would be remiss if I did not express our appreciation of the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Bud Shuster, and for our ranking Member, Jim Oberstar, for their tireless efforts on behalf of securing fairness, equity and justice in the federal highway and transit programs as exemplified by this conference agreement. These two gentlemen, along with Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri and myself, worked to uphold the principles espoused in the House bill during our meetings with the other body. I must also commend the Secretary of Transportation. During the course of our deliberations over this legislation, Rodney Slater did not sit idly in his office. He rolled up his sleeves and got down to work with us to seek resolution of many, many difficult issues and decisions that were addressed. I urge approval by the House of this conference report. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. [[Page H3949]] At this time, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. When this measure was before the House last month, it included a provision which stated that savings from veterans' programs should not be used to offset any costs associated with the bill. The House also passed a second provision which I supported, instructing House negotiators not to use funds from changes in veterans' programs to pay for these projects. The conference report ignores those provisions for the most part. Mr. Speaker, over the past dozen years, the VA Committee has reported legislation changing veterans' programs and saving the American taxpayer over $12 billion. In addition, Congress has reversed veterans' spending created by courts in the Davenport and Gardner cases, leading to an additional billion dollars or more in savings. When the Administration suggested that we repeal the windfall created by the VA General Counsel decision that requires the VA to compensate veterans with tobacco-related illnesses, the Administration projected that the repeal would save $17 billion over five years. The Administration also suggested that we spend only $1.5 billion of that savings to enhance neglected programs serving veterans. Unfortunately, the conferees have handed the Administration a victory by using all but $1.6 billion of the $17 billion in savings for purposes other than veterans' programs. It's not right that less than 10 percent of those savings is being put back into the budget for veterans. While this $1.6 billion will be used to improve some of our highest priority veterans' programs, we should do better. It's not right Mr. Speaker--vote against the conference report that takes too much from veterans' programs. Mr. Speaker, for the information of my colleagues, I am including the following information on the issue of VA disability compensation for tobacco-related disabilities. I also include an explanation of the proposed increase in benefits for veterans going to school under the Montgomery GI Bill and other benefit enhancements. Background and Discussion Legislative History of Provision Repealing VA Tobacco Compensation Authority In January 1993, the General Counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Mr. James A. Endicott, Jr., signed a memorandum addressed to the Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) which had as its subject ``Entitlement to Benefits Based upon Tobacco Use While in Service.'' This memorandum was Office of General Counsel Precedent Opinion 2-93. Under applicable Department regulation (38 C.F.R. 14.507(b)), a ``precedent opinion'' is one that ``necessitates regulatory change, interprets a statute or regulation as a matter of first impression, clarifies or modifies a prior opinion, or is otherwise of significance beyond the matter at issue.'' A precedent opinion is: ``Binding on Department officials and employees in subsequent matters involving a legal issue decided in the precedent opinion, unless there has been a material change in a controlling statute or regulation or the opinion has been overruled or modified by a subsequent precedent opinion or judicial decision.'' The precedent opinion arose in the context of an appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals by the surviving spouse of a veteran who died of adenocarcinoma of the lung and who had smoked a pack and a half of cigarettes per day for over forty years. In the opinion, the General Counsel held that the BVA could determine whether nicotine dependence may be considered a disease or injury for disability compensation purposes. It also held that ``direct service connection of disability or death may be established if the evidence establishes that injury or disease resulted from tobacco use in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service'' and that ``tobacco use does not constitute drug abuse within the meaning of statutes'' prohibiting VA from considering drug or alcohol abuse as occurring in line of duty. A subsequent decision by the BVA determined that the veteran's tobacco use while in service was an ``event or exposure'' that resulted some years after service in disease that produced disability and death. Accordingly, the claim of the surviving spouse was allowed. The Compensation and Pension Service of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) advised VBA field adjudicative units in a March 4, 1993 conference call to defer action on claims involving the use of tobacco products during active service. This moratorium on action lasted for four years until a January 28, 1997 directive was issued giving field adjudicative units instructions on how to process tobacco- related claims. In May of 1997, VA General Counsel Mary Lou Keener issued another precedent opinion addressing the circumstances in which VA could determine that tobacco- related disability or death that was secondary to in-service tobacco use was service connected for VA benefit purposes. That opinion held that if: 1) nicotine dependence could be considered a disease for purposes of laws governing veterans' benefits; 2) the veteran acquired a dependence on nicotine in service; and 3) that dependence was the proximate cause of disability or death, then service connection could be established on a secondary basis. In May of 1997, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown transmitted a legislative proposal on behalf of the Administration to terminate the VA's authority to compensate or otherwise award benefits to a veteran for diseases or deaths attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by a veteran during military service. According to Secretary Brown's letter: ``This amendment is consistent with the 1990 budget reconciliation act, in which Congress prohibited compensation for disabilities which are the result of veterans' abuse of alcohol and drugs. This was fiscally responsible action which enhanced the integrity of our compensation programs, and our proposal regarding tobacco use is offered in that same spirit. In addition, claims based upon tobacco-related disorders present medical and legal issues which could impede ongoing efforts to speed claim processing by placing significant additional demands on the adjudicative system. This provision would not preclude establishment of service connection for disability or death from a disease or injury which became manifest or was aggravated during active service or became manifest to the requisite degree of disability during any applicable presumptive period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of title 38, United States Code. This amendment would apply to claims filed after the date of its enactment.'' The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Benefits held a hearing on May 14, 1997 on the VA's proposal. Testimony was received from veterans organizations and the Department. The Subcommittee made no recommendation on the proposed legislation. In a letter dated September 19, 1997, (copy attached) VA Secretary-Designate Hershel W. Gober urged the Congress to take action on the VA's legislative proposal regarding tobacco-related benefits. In this same letter, Secretary- Designate Gober highlighted a new cost estimate of the impact of processing and paying tobacco-related claims. According to the Secretary-Designate, if VA could process all claims immediately, the cost of compensating veterans would be $4.4 billion in fiscal year 1998 and $23.8 billion over five years. It was estimated that VA could receive 540,000 tobacco-related claims, and that this would increase the VA's backlog of pending claims to over 1.5 million in fiscal year 1998, and that average processing time would increase from 113 days to 312 days. A letter dated March 17, 1998 (copy attached) from VA Acting Secretary Togo West reaffirmed the Administration's position on compensation benefits for tobacco-related disabilities. It also noted that according to the President's budget submission ``enactment of VA's proposal would result in FY '99 savings of $741 million and five-year savings of $16.9 billion.'' In response to a question about the intent of the Administration's proposal, Acting General Counsel Robert E. Coy clarified the intent of the legislative language with regard to veterans with diseases that could be attributable to tobacco use or some other cause. Mr. Coy stated in his March 19, 1998 letter (copy attached) that: ``The Administration's proposal would in no way affect veterans' ability to establish service connection on the basis of any legal presumptions authorizing VA benefits. The Administration has proposed only that disabilities or deaths may not be considered service connected ``on the basis that'' the underlying diseases are ``attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by the veterans during service.'' The effect of enactment of this proposal would be that if the only manner in which a disability or death could be considered service connected is ``on the basis that'' it is due to either the veteran's tobacco use or nicotine dependence in service, that avenue for establishing service connection would be foreclosed.'' On March 30, 1998, Acting Secretary West transmitted a revised draft of its proposed legislation to the Congress (copy attached). Acting Secretary (now Secretary) West noted that: ``Like the consumption of alcohol, the use of tobacco products is not a requirement of military service. Most veterans, like most Americans, do not use tobacco products. It is inappropriate to compensate those veterans who do use tobacco, and their survivors, under a program developed for veterans who became disabled in service to our nation. ``In the debate which has ensued since our proposal of last May, we have heard no persuasive argument for why it should fall upon the government to compensate veterans for, or treat on a service-connected basis, disabilities first arising postservice whose only connections (sic) to service are the veterans' own tobacco use. We do not believe the American people consider these to be the government's responsibility. (emphasis added).'' In the VA Committee's report to the Committee on the Budget on the budget proposed for veterans' programs for fiscal year 1999, the Committee expressed the following view on the Administration's proposal: [[Page H3950]] ``The Committee concurs with former Secretary Brown's concerns about the integrity of the compensation system. The Committee also believes that paying compensation to veterans for tobacco-related illnesses goes beyond the government's responsibility. There is a significant philosophical difference between service-connected compensation and other disability programs such as Social Security or the VA pension program which make no distinctions based on when a disability or illness occurs or is first diagnosed. Service-connected compensation, on the other hand, is based on the presumption that a person would not have the illness or disability save for some event or circumstance beyond the person's control. A policy of paying compensation for tobacco-related illnesses absolves the veteran of personal responsibility for his or her choices about tobacco use. In the past, Congress has determined that the individual, not the federal government, is responsible for illnesses which are related to the use of alcohol or drugs. Thus, a policy of paying benefits for illnesses related to the use of tobacco would be inconsistent with these prior determinations. ``The Committee is also very concerned that the projected annual caseload of 540,000 tobacco-related claims would overload the adjudication system and lengthen the already- too-long processing time for all types of claims. VA estimated in 1997 that processing time for an original compensation claim would increase from 113 days to 312 days. ``To reflect the nation's commitment to its veterans, the Committee will recommend legislation that will use all of the savings from enacting a limitation on compensation for tobacco-related illnesses to improve a wide range of programs. These are programs affecting our most disabled veterans, surviving dependents, separating service members, unemployed and under-employed veterans, and those seeking an education or a home.'' Section 8203. Twenty percent increase in rates of basic educational assistance under Montgomery GI Bill. This provision would increase the current Montgomery GI Bill basic rate from $440 per month to $528 per month (chapter 30) beginning October 1, 1998, and the basic rate for the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance (chapter 1606). This is a 20 percent increase and follows the Administration's proposal. Section 8204. Increase in assistance amount for specially adapted housing. This section increases the adaptive housing grants for severely disabled veterans from $38,000 to $43,000. The VA offers a one-time Specially Adapted Housing grant to certain severely disabled veterans so that they may purchase a home specially adapted to their needs or make modifications to current residences. The last increase was 10 years ago. Section 8205. Increase in amount of assistance for automobile and adaptive equipment for certain disabled veterans. This increases the auto allowance for severely disabled veterans from $5,500 to $8,000 to account for the rising cost of automobiles. The VA provides a one-time payment toward the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance to certain veterans with a service-connected loss of one or both hands or feet or permanent loss of use, or permanent impairment of vision in both eyes. This would be the first increase since 1988. Section 8206. Increase in aid and attendance rates for veterans eligible for pension. This section increases the monthly pension benefit by $50 for severely disabled veterans in need of the full time aid and attendance of another person. This increase is intended to assist the increasing number of low-income veterans who will need alternatives to nursing home care over the next 15 years. Section 8207. Eligibility of certain remarried surviving spouses for reinstatement of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation upon termination of that remarriage. This provision will allow all surviving spouses of veterans who die from a service-connected disability to resume their Dependency and Indemnity Compensation if their subsequent remarriage ends. This repeals an OBRA 1990 provision. Section 8208. Extension of prior revision to offset rule for Department of Defense Special Separation Benefit program. The 1997 DOD Authorization Act prohibited VA compensation offsets on the gross amount of special separation bonuses (SSB) for those separating after September 30, 1996. This section would make that provision in the 1997 DOD Authorization Act retroactive to 1991. If a bonus recipient subsequently qualifies for VA disability compensation, current law requires VA to offset the entire amount of SSB, including amounts withheld as income tax. ____ The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, September 19, 1997. Hon. Bob Stump, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: It is because of my deep concern about the impact that tobacco-related compensation could have on the integrity of the entire compensation system, coupled with the fiscal impact, that I am writing you to encourage your action on the VA legislative proposal regarding tobacco- related service connection. I am also concerned that this sizable influx of claims into our system will so significantly increase our backlog that veterans with non- tobacco related conditions will experience intolerable delays in the processing of their claims. These concerns are made eminently clear in our official estimate of the potential impact of compensating veterans for tobacco-related conditions which is transmitted with this letter. This is an extremely complex estimate--one which has been taken us considerable time to develop. Contributing to its complexity is the number of assumptions that had to be made about veterans' health and mortality, veterans' smoking behavior, and most significantly, the rate at which veterans' tobacco-related compensation claims may be anticipated. I believe that the assistance provided us by Jeffrey Harris, MD, Ph.D., a nationally, known expert in the area of costs associated with tobacco-related diseases, was critical to informing our decisions. Dr. Harris' report is included as part of this package. Although some of the many assumptions in our calculations could produce differing results, any reasonable calculation would know just how big an issue tobacco-related compensation is for VA, and for the Nation. I want to highlight some significant points about the estimated cost and workload impact of tobacco-related compensation. If we could process all claims immediately, we believe that compensating veterans and survivors could cost an estimated $4.4 billion in Fiscal Year 1998 and $23.8 billion over the next five years. These estimates do not include the cost of benefits to survivors of already deceased veterans. Realistically, we estimate that while we may receive over 540,000 tobacco-related claims, we will not be able to process them upon receipt. The backlog of all VA disability claims will increase from current 465,000 to over 1.5 million in Fiscal Year 1998, and increase steadily to over 2 million in Fiscal Year 2000. At the same time, the processing time of original claims will deteriorate from the current 113 days to 312 days. Because of the backlog, the actual tobacco benefits paid will likely be $40 million in the first year and $1.9 billion over the next five years unless there is a significant reallocation of resources that would permit dramatic changes in the Veterans Benefits Administration's information technology and infrastructure, and allow for massive hiring and training of new VA employees. I appreciate your patience in waiting for this estimate. We are also examining the impact of tobacco-related compensation on the VA health care system. Clearly, the service connection of substantial numbers of veterans for tobacco-related conditions that in most cases have intense and costly medical treatment associated with them has the potential for large numbers of newly eligible, high priority veterans to seek health care from VA. I hope you will agree with me that the enormity of the impact on the claims backlog and on timeless of processing as well the fiscal impact, punctuate the critical need for prompt enactment of that legislation. I will be happy to personally discuss this with you, and VA staff are available to provide further explanation to Committee staff as desired. I think that these estimates clearly explain why we should all be concerned about the implications of tobacco-related compensation. I look forward to the Committee's prompt action on the proposed legislation to remedy this situation. Please let me know if we can provide additional information. Sincerely, Hershel W. Gober, Secretary-Designate. ____ Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, March 17, 1998. Hon. Bob Stump, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: As you and your colleagues on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee make final preparations to submit your Fiscal Year 1999 budgetary views and estimates to the House Budget Committee, I am taking this opportunity to highlight and reaffirm the Administration's position on compensation benefits for tobacco-related disabilities. VA has proposed legislation to preclude service-connected benefit eligibility based upon diseases which first arise after service (and after any post-service presumptive period) if their only connection to service is the veterans' own use of tobacco products. VA's proposal would not preclude service connection for tobacco-related diseases actually manifesting themselves in service or within presumptive periods in law, and would apply only to claims filed after the date of enactment. The Department's position is based upon several considerations. First, the responsibility to compensate veterans for diseases whose connection to service is the veterans' own tobacco use--in some cases only briefly--while in service, should not rest with the Government. Second, we believe that providing benefits in these cases exceeds the American public's sense of the Government's obligations to veterans, and so threatens to undermine support for VA programs. Third, if projections regarding the magnitude of future tobacco-related claims--perhaps as many as 540,000 in a year--prove anywhere near correct, without our legislation VA's claims system could be so overwhelmed as to seriously impair its ability to process claims of any kind in a timely manner. As reflected in the President's FY '99 budget submission, enactment of VA's proposal would result in FY '99 savings of $741 million [[Page H3951]] and five-year savings of $16.9 billion. We appreciate your consideration of our views on this critical issue. Sincerely, Togo D. West, Jr., Acting Secretary. ____ DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Office of the General Counsel Washington DC, March 1, 1998. Carl Commenator, Esq., Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Commenator. You have requested that we provide, as a technical service, an explanation as to how the Administration's proposal to restrict service connection for certain tobacco-related disabilities and deaths would, if enacted, affect claimants' ability to establish service connection under certain presumptions in law and regulation. Specifically, you referenced a number of conditions presumed to be service connected if suffered by certain veterans exposed to ionizing radiation or herbicides I service. The short answer is that the Administration's proposal would in no way affect veterans' ability to establish service connection on the basis on any legal presumptions authorizing VA benefits. The Administration has proposed only that disabilities or deaths may not be considered service connected ``on the basis that'' the underlying diseases are ``attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by the veteran during service''. The effect of enactment of this proposal would be that if the only manner in which a disability or death could be considered service connected is ``on the basis that'' it is due to either the veteran's tobacco use or nicotine dependence in service, that avenue for establishing service connection would be foreclosed. The new Sec. 1103(b) of title 38, United States Code, as proposed in the Administration's bill, would specifically provide that this change in law would in no way preclude establishing service connection on the basis of the presumptions authorized under Sec. Sec. 1112 and 1116 of title 38: Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as precluding the establishment of service connection for disability or death from a disease or injury which . . . . became manifest to the requisite degree of disability during any applicable presumptive period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of this title. In other words, if a disability or death could be presumed service connected on the basis of the various provisions of sections 1112 and 1116, which of course include presumptions for certain radiation-exposed and herbicide-exposed veterans, the proposed limitation on establishing service connection ``on the basis of'' tobacco use in service would have no preclusive effect at all. For example, as authorized by Sec. 1112(c), specified cancers may be presumed service connected if suffered by certain radiation-exposed veterans. If a veteran could qualify for service connection under such a presumption, as the Administration's tobacco legislation plainly states, that service connection and resulting benefit eligibility would be unaffected by enactment of the legislation. The same is true for all other presumptions in law, including the herbicide presumptions for respiratory cancers and other illnesses authorized by Sec. 1116 of title 38. The result of enactment of our legislation would be to simply restore the manner and method by which VA adjudicated claims prior to issuance of the two General Counsel opinion on tobacco use and service connection. I hope the foregoing is fully responsive to your request. Sincerely yours, Robert E. Coy, Acting General Counsel. ____ Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, March 30, 1998. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is a draft bill, the ``Veterans Tobacco Amendments of 1998'', which I ask be referred to the appropriate committee for prompt consideration and enactment. It would relieve the Government of an unjustified liability for certain postservice health effects of veterans' tobacco use in service. On May 9, 1997, VA submitted to Congress a draft bill whose provisions included a proposal bar to establishing service connection for disabilities or deaths if their only relationship to service were the veterans' inservice nicotine dependence or use of tobacco products. The enclosed draft is substantively identical to section 105 of the bill VA offered last year, introduced in the Senate as S. 987. Our Nation has an enduring obligation to those who, because of serving in defense of our freedoms, become disabled or die. We at VA are privileged to be the ones who deliver on that obligation. However, Congress has recognized the appropriateness of boundaries to the compensation program. This bill is consistent with the 1990 budget reconciliation act, in which Congress prohibited payment of disability benefits for illnesses based solely on use of alcohol or drugs during military service. Like the consumption of alcohol, the use of tobacco products is not a requirement of military service. Most veterans, like most Americans, do not use tobacco products. It is inappropriate to compensate those veterans who do use tobacco, and their survivors, under a program developed for veterans who became disabled in service to our nation. In the debate which has ensued since our proposal of last May, we have heard no persuasive argument for why it should fall upon the government to compensate veterans for, or treat on a service-connected basis, disabilities first arising postservice whose only connections to service are the veterans' own tobacco use. We do not believe the American people consider these to be the government's responsibility. However, our proposal would not preclude service connection for tobacco-related disabilities or deaths from diseases which actually manifest themselves during service or within any applicable presumptive period, and to this extent our bill is less preclusive than the alcohol- and drug-abuse proscription. Our proposal also is limited in its reach to claims filed with VA after its enactment. Thus, veterans and survivors currently receiving these benefits and veterans and survivors filing claims prior to enactment would not be affected by the change. We are privileged to serve as stewards for veterans programs, which deservedly enjoy broad public support. With that stewardship, however, comes a responsibility to recommend appropriate changes when we sense they may become imperiled by something which could undermine public support for them. The estimated influx of tobacco-related claims-- perhaps as many as 540,000 in the next year--threatens to overwhelm our adjudication system and result in unconscionable delays for all VA claimants. Because of the enormous implications it could have in terms of both costs and impact on claims processing, the current requirement that VA consider these smoking-related disabilities and deaths to be service connected carries the potential for just such programmatic harm. This legislation would affect direct spending; therefore, it is subject to the pay-as-you-go (paygo) requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990. As reflected in the President's Budget for FY 1999, enactment of this proposal would result in paygo savings of $741 million during FY 1999 and $16.9 billion over the period FYs 1999- 2003. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this draft bill to the Congress, and that its enactment would be in accord with the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, Togo D. West, Jr., Acting Secretary. ____ A Bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that service connection for certain disabilities or deaths may not be established solely on the basis of inservice tobacco use or nicotine dependence. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Tobacco Amendments of 1998''. SECTION 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST VETERANS BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY BASED SOLELY UPON TOBACCO USE IN SERVICE. (a) Service Connection.--Subchapter 1 of chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: ``Sec. 1103. Special provisions relating to claims based upon effects of tobacco products. ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a veteran's disability or death shall not be considered to have resulted from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval or air service for purposes of this title on the basis that it resulted from injury or disease attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by the veteran during the veteran's service. ``(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as precluding the establishment of service connection for disability or death from a disease or injury which is otherwise shown to have been incurred or aggravated in active military, naval or air service or which became manifest to the requisite degree of disability during any applicable presumption period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of this title.''. (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 11 of title 38, United State Code, is amended by adding the following new item after the item relating to section 1102: ``1103. Special provisions relating to claims based upon effects of tobacco products.''. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall apply to claims received by the Secretary after the date of enactment of this Act. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr.Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has indicated that he is not supporting this piece of legislation. I heard my colleague say that this is a social safety net. Well, what we need to know that just got paved over are low-income, disabled veterans who had a funding in this bill. It was only $500 million, but it was a chance to create a permanent program for low- income, disabled veterans to get what we said they deserve. [[Page H3952]] Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to enter into a colloquy is that if they are not allowed to use the tobacco money, is it not true that there are a number of excess acres and VA sites around the country, my understanding is, on Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills? How ironic that this land is not being used for the veterans, but they want to preserve it for a greenbelt, and yet we are taking veterans' money to pave over areas for highways. Would the Chairman look at the excess acreage

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2400, TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
(House of Representatives - May 22, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3945-H3965] CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2400, TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the House Resolution 449, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2400), to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 449, the conference report is considered as having been read. [[Page H3946]] (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the House of today.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). {time} 1645 Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, under the assumption that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is in favor of the conference report, I rise in opposition to the conference report and pursuant to rule XXXVIII, I request one-third of the time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is the gentleman from Minnesota opposed to the bill? Mr. OBERSTAR. No, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will control one-third of the time, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) will control one-third of the time, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) will control one-third of the time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Henry Clay, the great compromiser, once said the good thing about compromise is that for everything you give up, you get something in return. And, indeed, that is where we are today. We bring back from our conference with the Senate a compromise. Now, if I could waive a magic wand, there are several things in this bill I would do differently. So we do bring a compromise to the floor, but it is a good compromise. It is more than a good compromise, Mr. Speaker. It is an historic piece of legislation. It is an historic piece of legislation because we put the trust back in the transportation trust funds. This is an historic piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because now the American people will know that trust is being put back in the transportation trust fund. The revenue they pay, the gas tax which they pay into the transportation trust fund, will be available to be spent on transportation purposes. Indeed, while I and many others in this Chamber would have preferred to take the trust funds off budget, the compromise we reached is a good one, it is a solid one, it is a guarantee, an ironclad guarantee, that sets aside firewalls on the revenue coming into the transportation trust fund so that that money is available to be spent. So when the average American drives up to the gas pump and pays his 18.3-cent Federal tax, that money is free to be spent. It is a guarantee, it is an ironclad guarantee. This is an historic matter in and of itself, and that is one of the major reasons why this legislation is so important to America. What it means, if we do spend the revenue going into the trust fund, and not a penny more, only the revenue going into the trust fund, means that this bill over six years can guarantee $200,500,000,000 spending, because that is the revenue projected to go into the trust fund. Should there be more revenue going into the trust fund, that money will be available to be spent. Should there be less revenue going into the trust fund, then we will have to reduce the expenditures. It is fair, it is equitable, and it is keeping faith with the American people. This legislation is going to save, the experts tell me, approximately 4,000 lives a year, not only because of the safety provisions we have in it, but because about 30 percent of our 42,000 highway fatalities each year are caused as a result of bad roads. As we improve the roads, we save lives. Another very significant feature to this legislation is that the donor States will now get 90.5 percent minimum allocation guaranteed on the formulas. This is better than the guarantee in either the Senate or the House bill. Also, we have streamlining provisions in here which make it more easy for the States to proceed giving the various groups their opportunity to express themselves, but to get highways and transit systems built more expeditiously so we can gain the increased productivity, convenience and safety that goes with it. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to emphasize that just a few minutes ago the Senate passed this conference report by a vote of 88 to 5, and this afternoon the President of the United States said, ``I will be pleased to sign it into law.'' So we bring to Members now T-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and urge its passage. Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia. (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I rise today in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 2400, the TEA-21 Act, which addresses a number of important environmental and safety issues that were committed to the attention of the Committee on Commerce. As requested by the States, the conference report provides certainty regarding EPA's schedule for implementing the new ozone and PM air standards. The conference report also ensures that EPA will keep its promise to harmonize the schedule of its regional haze program and its promise to pay for PM monitors. To ensure that EPA uses the best science possible, the conference report directs the EPA Administrator to consider recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences. These provisions enjoyed wide support from the States and others, and I ask unanimous consent to include in the record three letters of support. The conference report also includes many of the provisions contained in H.R. 2691, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Reauthorization Act of 1998, which passed the House unanimously last month. In addition to reauthorizing NHTSA, it addresses the important issue of air bag safety and improves the protection of drivers, passengers, and children who are involved in motor vehicle crashes. These provisions will ultimately save lives. The conference report also addresses the issue of NHTSA lobbying. We agreed on a bipartisan basis to prohibit NHTSA from lobbying State and local officials, just as they are prohibited from lobbying Members of Congress. In closing, I would like to recognize the extraordinary effort that it took to bring this legislation to the floor today. Chairman Bilirakis, Chairman, Tauzin, and Ranking Member Dingell all worked very hard and on a bipartisan basis. I would also like to thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman Petri, as well as Ranking Members Oberstar and Rahall, for the high level of cooperation we received from the Transportation Committee. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the adoption of the conference report. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are pleased to bring to the House today is strong on mobility, strong on safety, strong on economic development. It sustains the economic expansion that our country is experiencing. It gives us thrust to continue the international competitiveness of the nation's economy. It is a balanced bill. It is strong on transportation, including all modes of transportation, transit, alternative transportation. It protects the environment, enhances safety, ensures fair treatment for construction and transit workers, for pedestrians, for bicyclists, for disadvantaged contractors, for people trying to end their dependence on welfare through the welfare to work provisions. Most importantly, it restores trust, the trust of the American people, to the Highway Trust Fund. It, with the guarantee provision we have included in this legislation, assures that we achieve in principle the goal we have sought in practice for so long, to take the trust fund off budget, but within the budget. This is no small accomplishment. We have been working since 1968, for 30 years, to bring the Highway Trust Fund back to the position where the revenues in are the revenues spent out and invested in the Nation's transportation needs. For the leadership that brought us to this point, I salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster). I like the name of the bill that passed the House, BESTEA, the Bud E. Shuster Transportation for All Eternity Act. And I salute my chairman for the leadership he has given us for the strong role that he played in the conference, and bringing back to this body [[Page H3947]] an extraordinarily proud piece of legislation. We have much to be proud of with this legislation. All of the points that I mentioned a moment ago can be expanded upon, but I think we can sum it up best with what the President said just moments ago. ``Let me say, this bill does show that fiscal responsibility and investing in our future go hand-in-hand toward preparing our people and our country for the next century. I want to thank Secretary Slater, Larry Stein, especially the Members of the economic team, for the hard work they did starting from a very difficult position to reduce the spending in this bill. If the Congress does in fact pass the bill as expected, I will be pleased to sign it into law.'' We would have liked a higher spending level. We would have liked many other provisions in this bill as we passed it in the House. But we bring back to you something that every Member of this body can take home to his or her district and stand up and be proud of and tell the American people we have done good as we approach the 21st Century, that that bridge to the 21st Century will not be a chimerical bridge, but it will be a bridge built on steel girders and concrete and asphalt and will take America into the 21st Century. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). He is, without question, I think one of the most effective chairs in this House, and he certainly knows how to run a railroad. I also have considerable respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the subcommittee chair for surface transportation. As far as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is concerned, my friend from the wrong side of the bridge in Minnesota, he and I vote against each other about, I think we voted against each other more in the past week on this issue than we have in all of the time we have been here. I have great respect and affection for him. But I stand here today because I believe it is important to recognize that there are certain principles which are being grossly violated by this bill that should not be violated. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota just said that there is something in this bill that every Member can take back home to their districts. That is certainly, certainly true. There are some 1,800 projects in this bill. To put that into perspective, in the entire history of the highway program, we have only had 1,022 projects for Members. In this bill, in one year, there will be 1,800. That is the most spectacular example of excess that I can recall. There is even in this bill a $120 million authorization for a highway in Canada. Now, I know a lot of citizens in a lot of States who would prefer that those dollars be spent in their own States. I did not know that Canada had become attached as another State, but evidently, despite that, we are going to spend money there any way. The main reason to oppose this bill is that it is simply a budget buster. As I understand it, it is $32 billion over the CBO baseline over 6 years, and as a consequence of that, to find ways to pay for that excess, the committee has taken, we are told, about $15 billion out of the hides of veterans' health care perhaps. They have also taken out $2 billion out of the title XX block grant. That is the program which pays for child care, for child protective services, for foster care, for home base services for the elderly, for services for at risk youth, for Meals on Wheels for the home bound. $2 billion coming out of that over three years. And then the bill says that for every year thereafter, there will be a continued reduction in that program. I do not believe that home bound senior citizens expect us to build highways by running over their needs, and I do not believe that veterans think we should do so either. I have two letters which I read earlier and I will read again a portion of them. The Paralyzed Veterans Association of America says as follows: ``It has been purported that veterans have now agreed to the offsets due to the inclusion of certain increases in other benefits. This is patently untrue. The conferees should reconsider their actions in using veterans funds as offsets to pay for transportation and highway projects that far exceed the levels established in last year's budget agreement.'' {time} 1700 The Disabled American Veterans urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question on this bill because of their objections to the veterans' cuts. It just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that while highways certainly deserve to be a top priority, they do not deserve to be the only priority, and we should not be funding concrete in another country. Certainly, we should not be paying for 1,800 special congressional projects by taking it out of the hides of veterans' health care and title 20 block grant, which is needed by our most needy and defenseless citizens. So that is why I will be offering, if I have the opportunity at the end of the bill, I will be offering a motion to recommit to at least eliminate the cuts for veterans that are used to finance a portion of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I salute the Chairman's leadership in this matter. Mr. Speaker, the true social safety net of this country is not made up of speeches delivered in this hall or even legislation passed in this hall. The true social safety net of this country is the productive capacity of the American people and the American economy. Passage of this legislation will enhance that productivity that will improve, thereby, the social safety net and the well-being of all Americans. I would join my colleagues in supporting this legislation that is backed by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Public Transit Association and the Representatives of America's Motorists, the AAA, the Senate of the United States by an 88- to-5 vote, and the President of the United States, who suggested the offsets that some of my colleagues deplore. But it has his support. It should from my colleagues. It is a good bill. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure. This bill provides the vital funds necessary to rebuild Michigan's crumbling roads, bridges, and interstates, and I congratulate and thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for their work. This legislation also includes provisions within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. They address important public health and safety matters, and do so in a manner that is fully bipartisan. I want to commend and thank Chairman Bliley, Mr. Tauzin, and Mr. Bilirakis for their efforts on these issues. H.R. 2400 contains provisions reauthorizing the activities of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The legislation contains the funding level requested by the Administration, and does two other important things. One, it establishes a rulemaking for the next generation of motor vehicle occupant protection systems. This is designed to address the tragic problems we've seen with the current generation of airbags. Second, the legislation corrects some flaws and anomalies in the formula used for calculating the domestic parts content of motor vehicles. This provision will give consumers more accurate information about the origin of their vehicles. H.R. 2400 contains one other provision of special note. It will give States and communities certainty regarding the implementation of the new national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. These legislative provisions do not change Administration policy, nor do they address fundamental questions regarding these standards and their impact. They simply ensure that the Administration's schedule for these standards is met and that the necessary monitoring data will be gathered expeditiously without imposing any financial burden on the States. In addition, we included language in the Statement of Managers to ensure that Administrator Browner carefully considers the recent recommendations of the National Research [[Page H3948]] Council regarding the national fine particle monitoring network which will be developed and deployed over the next two years. This group of independent scientists urged EPA to ensure that the plans for this monitoring program are thoroughly peer-reviewed at an early date, while such a review can still inform the monitoring-network design and operation. The Statement of Managers endorses this reasonable and prudent step and I fully expect EPA to take the necessary steps to ensure that all aspects of the development of this monitoring network are in fact subject to peer review. Beside making several minor technical changes, the Conferees made only one significant change to the original Inhofe Amendment as passed by the Senate. And that was to address an issue raised but not resolved by the Senate provision. Section 4102 not only calls for the establishment of a national network of fine particle monitors, it provides that areas will not be designated as nonattainment until States have the opportunity to review three years of data from these monitors. This guarantee was established by the President and adopted by EPA last summer. State submissions of programs to control fine particles are also delayed since they are triggered by the nonattainment designation process. However, EPA's proposed regional haze program could short-circuit this timing by requiring States to make decisions regarding the control of fine particles before the necessary technical information from the monitoring network is available. Why? Well, as Administrator Browner has testified: ``Like the new ambient air quality standards for fine particulates, the proposed rule for regional haze would similarly require the control of fine particulates.'' So since the two programs control the same pollutant and rest on the same technical information, even EPA has recognized that the two programs must be harmonized. To again quote Administrator Browner, ``it is our intention to manage the two together'' and ``not to have regional haze go first, but to actually combine them.'' These comments have been echoed by the Administrator and other EPA officials in other forums and in the Agency's official writings. However, there is a statutory glitch in EPA's efforts to harmonize the two programs. A provision in the Clean Air Act's visibility section requires State plans within one year after the visibility regulations are final. To address this statutory deadline, the Conferees added language to guarantee that the State submissions on regional haze will coincide with the State's fine particle submissions. As such, the provision implements EPA's stated policy regarding the timing issue. (I would add that the provision is not intended to endorse or ratify EPA's proposed regional haze program and the Conferees took no position on the legality or prudence of any portion of the proposed regulations.) Mr. Speaker, the Inhofe Amendment as modified by the Conferees represents a modest initial step to deal with the many issues raised by EPA's new air quality standards. I must promise with regret that this will not be the last time we will be before the House with legislation on this topic. Until that date, I urge members to support this first step. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who has spent such an enormous amount of time on this bill, and I congratulate him on his work. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this conference report on this most historic piece of legislation. For too long, this Nation has allowed its basic surface transportation system to deteriorate. For too long, we have witnessed unsafe road conditions contributing to the fatality and injury rate of the American public. And for too long, we have experienced our competitive posture in world commerce be adversely affected by an increasingly inefficient surface transportation network. Today, we are making an historic move that this shall be no more. This conference agreement to authorize Federal highway, highway safety, motor carrier and transit programs is the largest and most comprehensive surface transportation bills to be considered in the history of our Nation, and I am very proud of this legislation. I am proud of our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I am proud of our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). I am very proud of the staff that has worked virtually around the clock for the last 2 or 3 weeks to get this historic legislation to the floor of the House, and they deserve the highest words of praise as well. Indeed, in dollar terms, this legislation will provide over $200 billion during the course of a 6-year period for highway and transit facilities. However, there is much more than just dollars in this legislation. It transcends considerations of the concrete, the asphalt, the steel and stone. Indeed, what we are doing in this legislation is improving our standard of living for our children in generations to come. It entails a type of legacy that we wish to leave future generations of Americans. It is an investment in America's infrastructure finally and foremost, rather than throwing money overseas. So I approve of this legislation wholeheartedly. We address safety. We address the environment. We address flexibility. We truly have an intermodal piece of legislation here, and I commend it to my colleagues for passage. Safety. We are all concerned about the safety of our children and our families. This bill contains an impressive array of weapons to combat unsafe road conditions, and importantly, unsafe drivers. Road rage is on the rise in the country. Tempers flare as drivers are gridlocked in traffic snarls. This bill will bring to bear an better financed Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program that contains the keys to unlock that gridlock and sooth those flaring tempers. With this bill, we are also escalating the war against drunk driving, including through a $500 million arsenal of incentives to the States to lower blood alcohol content standards. The environment. Transportation is about much more than roads, bridges and highways. It is also about alternative means of moving people from place to place. The Transportation Enhancements Programs will experience a significant increase in funding for an expanded list of eligible projects that will serve to make the transportation experience more enjoyable for many Americans. Innovation. Americans are innovative by nature, and this bill rewards that attitude in terms of both technology and financing. Under it, intelligent transportation systems, maglev and other new transportation initiatives will be further advanced, and indeed, taken past the demonstration stage and placed into every day use. Further, this legislation further promotes innovative financing approaches to transportation problems through a wide range of tools. And finally, a promise. A promise that will now be fulfilled to the people of the Appalachian Region more than 30 years ago. For the first time, the Appalachian Highway System will be fully incorporated into the Nation's highway program and financed by trust fund revenues. This will provide a secure and dedicated source of funding for the unfinished segments of the Appalachian Development Highway System, opening impoverished areas greater accessibility and subsequent economic development. In this regard, the inclusion of this program in this legislation is due to the efforts of West Virginia's senior Senator, Robert C. Byrd. And it will stand as his lasting legacy. In conclusion, to the American motorist, know this. The taxes we pay every time we gas-up our vehicles will no longer be used for non- transportation purposes. This bill contains an iron-clad, rock-ribbed, copper-riveted guarantee that fuel tax revenues will be spent on highway and transit improvements. We have built a fire wall around these revenues from which there will be no diversion. My colleagues, I would be remiss if I did not express our appreciation of the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Bud Shuster, and for our ranking Member, Jim Oberstar, for their tireless efforts on behalf of securing fairness, equity and justice in the federal highway and transit programs as exemplified by this conference agreement. These two gentlemen, along with Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri and myself, worked to uphold the principles espoused in the House bill during our meetings with the other body. I must also commend the Secretary of Transportation. During the course of our deliberations over this legislation, Rodney Slater did not sit idly in his office. He rolled up his sleeves and got down to work with us to seek resolution of many, many difficult issues and decisions that were addressed. I urge approval by the House of this conference report. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. [[Page H3949]] At this time, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. When this measure was before the House last month, it included a provision which stated that savings from veterans' programs should not be used to offset any costs associated with the bill. The House also passed a second provision which I supported, instructing House negotiators not to use funds from changes in veterans' programs to pay for these projects. The conference report ignores those provisions for the most part. Mr. Speaker, over the past dozen years, the VA Committee has reported legislation changing veterans' programs and saving the American taxpayer over $12 billion. In addition, Congress has reversed veterans' spending created by courts in the Davenport and Gardner cases, leading to an additional billion dollars or more in savings. When the Administration suggested that we repeal the windfall created by the VA General Counsel decision that requires the VA to compensate veterans with tobacco-related illnesses, the Administration projected that the repeal would save $17 billion over five years. The Administration also suggested that we spend only $1.5 billion of that savings to enhance neglected programs serving veterans. Unfortunately, the conferees have handed the Administration a victory by using all but $1.6 billion of the $17 billion in savings for purposes other than veterans' programs. It's not right that less than 10 percent of those savings is being put back into the budget for veterans. While this $1.6 billion will be used to improve some of our highest priority veterans' programs, we should do better. It's not right Mr. Speaker--vote against the conference report that takes too much from veterans' programs. Mr. Speaker, for the information of my colleagues, I am including the following information on the issue of VA disability compensation for tobacco-related disabilities. I also include an explanation of the proposed increase in benefits for veterans going to school under the Montgomery GI Bill and other benefit enhancements. Background and Discussion Legislative History of Provision Repealing VA Tobacco Compensation Authority In January 1993, the General Counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Mr. James A. Endicott, Jr., signed a memorandum addressed to the Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) which had as its subject ``Entitlement to Benefits Based upon Tobacco Use While in Service.'' This memorandum was Office of General Counsel Precedent Opinion 2-93. Under applicable Department regulation (38 C.F.R. 14.507(b)), a ``precedent opinion'' is one that ``necessitates regulatory change, interprets a statute or regulation as a matter of first impression, clarifies or modifies a prior opinion, or is otherwise of significance beyond the matter at issue.'' A precedent opinion is: ``Binding on Department officials and employees in subsequent matters involving a legal issue decided in the precedent opinion, unless there has been a material change in a controlling statute or regulation or the opinion has been overruled or modified by a subsequent precedent opinion or judicial decision.'' The precedent opinion arose in the context of an appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals by the surviving spouse of a veteran who died of adenocarcinoma of the lung and who had smoked a pack and a half of cigarettes per day for over forty years. In the opinion, the General Counsel held that the BVA could determine whether nicotine dependence may be considered a disease or injury for disability compensation purposes. It also held that ``direct service connection of disability or death may be established if the evidence establishes that injury or disease resulted from tobacco use in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service'' and that ``tobacco use does not constitute drug abuse within the meaning of statutes'' prohibiting VA from considering drug or alcohol abuse as occurring in line of duty. A subsequent decision by the BVA determined that the veteran's tobacco use while in service was an ``event or exposure'' that resulted some years after service in disease that produced disability and death. Accordingly, the claim of the surviving spouse was allowed. The Compensation and Pension Service of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) advised VBA field adjudicative units in a March 4, 1993 conference call to defer action on claims involving the use of tobacco products during active service. This moratorium on action lasted for four years until a January 28, 1997 directive was issued giving field adjudicative units instructions on how to process tobacco- related claims. In May of 1997, VA General Counsel Mary Lou Keener issued another precedent opinion addressing the circumstances in which VA could determine that tobacco- related disability or death that was secondary to in-service tobacco use was service connected for VA benefit purposes. That opinion held that if: 1) nicotine dependence could be considered a disease for purposes of laws governing veterans' benefits; 2) the veteran acquired a dependence on nicotine in service; and 3) that dependence was the proximate cause of disability or death, then service connection could be established on a secondary basis. In May of 1997, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown transmitted a legislative proposal on behalf of the Administration to terminate the VA's authority to compensate or otherwise award benefits to a veteran for diseases or deaths attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by a veteran during military service. According to Secretary Brown's letter: ``This amendment is consistent with the 1990 budget reconciliation act, in which Congress prohibited compensation for disabilities which are the result of veterans' abuse of alcohol and drugs. This was fiscally responsible action which enhanced the integrity of our compensation programs, and our proposal regarding tobacco use is offered in that same spirit. In addition, claims based upon tobacco-related disorders present medical and legal issues which could impede ongoing efforts to speed claim processing by placing significant additional demands on the adjudicative system. This provision would not preclude establishment of service connection for disability or death from a disease or injury which became manifest or was aggravated during active service or became manifest to the requisite degree of disability during any applicable presumptive period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of title 38, United States Code. This amendment would apply to claims filed after the date of its enactment.'' The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Benefits held a hearing on May 14, 1997 on the VA's proposal. Testimony was received from veterans organizations and the Department. The Subcommittee made no recommendation on the proposed legislation. In a letter dated September 19, 1997, (copy attached) VA Secretary-Designate Hershel W. Gober urged the Congress to take action on the VA's legislative proposal regarding tobacco-related benefits. In this same letter, Secretary- Designate Gober highlighted a new cost estimate of the impact of processing and paying tobacco-related claims. According to the Secretary-Designate, if VA could process all claims immediately, the cost of compensating veterans would be $4.4 billion in fiscal year 1998 and $23.8 billion over five years. It was estimated that VA could receive 540,000 tobacco-related claims, and that this would increase the VA's backlog of pending claims to over 1.5 million in fiscal year 1998, and that average processing time would increase from 113 days to 312 days. A letter dated March 17, 1998 (copy attached) from VA Acting Secretary Togo West reaffirmed the Administration's position on compensation benefits for tobacco-related disabilities. It also noted that according to the President's budget submission ``enactment of VA's proposal would result in FY '99 savings of $741 million and five-year savings of $16.9 billion.'' In response to a question about the intent of the Administration's proposal, Acting General Counsel Robert E. Coy clarified the intent of the legislative language with regard to veterans with diseases that could be attributable to tobacco use or some other cause. Mr. Coy stated in his March 19, 1998 letter (copy attached) that: ``The Administration's proposal would in no way affect veterans' ability to establish service connection on the basis of any legal presumptions authorizing VA benefits. The Administration has proposed only that disabilities or deaths may not be considered service connected ``on the basis that'' the underlying diseases are ``attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by the veterans during service.'' The effect of enactment of this proposal would be that if the only manner in which a disability or death could be considered service connected is ``on the basis that'' it is due to either the veteran's tobacco use or nicotine dependence in service, that avenue for establishing service connection would be foreclosed.'' On March 30, 1998, Acting Secretary West transmitted a revised draft of its proposed legislation to the Congress (copy attached). Acting Secretary (now Secretary) West noted that: ``Like the consumption of alcohol, the use of tobacco products is not a requirement of military service. Most veterans, like most Americans, do not use tobacco products. It is inappropriate to compensate those veterans who do use tobacco, and their survivors, under a program developed for veterans who became disabled in service to our nation. ``In the debate which has ensued since our proposal of last May, we have heard no persuasive argument for why it should fall upon the government to compensate veterans for, or treat on a service-connected basis, disabilities first arising postservice whose only connections (sic) to service are the veterans' own tobacco use. We do not believe the American people consider these to be the government's responsibility. (emphasis added).'' In the VA Committee's report to the Committee on the Budget on the budget proposed for veterans' programs for fiscal year 1999, the Committee expressed the following view on the Administration's proposal: [[Page H3950]] ``The Committee concurs with former Secretary Brown's concerns about the integrity of the compensation system. The Committee also believes that paying compensation to veterans for tobacco-related illnesses goes beyond the government's responsibility. There is a significant philosophical difference between service-connected compensation and other disability programs such as Social Security or the VA pension program which make no distinctions based on when a disability or illness occurs or is first diagnosed. Service-connected compensation, on the other hand, is based on the presumption that a person would not have the illness or disability save for some event or circumstance beyond the person's control. A policy of paying compensation for tobacco-related illnesses absolves the veteran of personal responsibility for his or her choices about tobacco use. In the past, Congress has determined that the individual, not the federal government, is responsible for illnesses which are related to the use of alcohol or drugs. Thus, a policy of paying benefits for illnesses related to the use of tobacco would be inconsistent with these prior determinations. ``The Committee is also very concerned that the projected annual caseload of 540,000 tobacco-related claims would overload the adjudication system and lengthen the already- too-long processing time for all types of claims. VA estimated in 1997 that processing time for an original compensation claim would increase from 113 days to 312 days. ``To reflect the nation's commitment to its veterans, the Committee will recommend legislation that will use all of the savings from enacting a limitation on compensation for tobacco-related illnesses to improve a wide range of programs. These are programs affecting our most disabled veterans, surviving dependents, separating service members, unemployed and under-employed veterans, and those seeking an education or a home.'' Section 8203. Twenty percent increase in rates of basic educational assistance under Montgomery GI Bill. This provision would increase the current Montgomery GI Bill basic rate from $440 per month to $528 per month (chapter 30) beginning October 1, 1998, and the basic rate for the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance (chapter 1606). This is a 20 percent increase and follows the Administration's proposal. Section 8204. Increase in assistance amount for specially adapted housing. This section increases the adaptive housing grants for severely disabled veterans from $38,000 to $43,000. The VA offers a one-time Specially Adapted Housing grant to certain severely disabled veterans so that they may purchase a home specially adapted to their needs or make modifications to current residences. The last increase was 10 years ago. Section 8205. Increase in amount of assistance for automobile and adaptive equipment for certain disabled veterans. This increases the auto allowance for severely disabled veterans from $5,500 to $8,000 to account for the rising cost of automobiles. The VA provides a one-time payment toward the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance to certain veterans with a service-connected loss of one or both hands or feet or permanent loss of use, or permanent impairment of vision in both eyes. This would be the first increase since 1988. Section 8206. Increase in aid and attendance rates for veterans eligible for pension. This section increases the monthly pension benefit by $50 for severely disabled veterans in need of the full time aid and attendance of another person. This increase is intended to assist the increasing number of low-income veterans who will need alternatives to nursing home care over the next 15 years. Section 8207. Eligibility of certain remarried surviving spouses for reinstatement of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation upon termination of that remarriage. This provision will allow all surviving spouses of veterans who die from a service-connected disability to resume their Dependency and Indemnity Compensation if their subsequent remarriage ends. This repeals an OBRA 1990 provision. Section 8208. Extension of prior revision to offset rule for Department of Defense Special Separation Benefit program. The 1997 DOD Authorization Act prohibited VA compensation offsets on the gross amount of special separation bonuses (SSB) for those separating after September 30, 1996. This section would make that provision in the 1997 DOD Authorization Act retroactive to 1991. If a bonus recipient subsequently qualifies for VA disability compensation, current law requires VA to offset the entire amount of SSB, including amounts withheld as income tax. ____ The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, September 19, 1997. Hon. Bob Stump, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: It is because of my deep concern about the impact that tobacco-related compensation could have on the integrity of the entire compensation system, coupled with the fiscal impact, that I am writing you to encourage your action on the VA legislative proposal regarding tobacco- related service connection. I am also concerned that this sizable influx of claims into our system will so significantly increase our backlog that veterans with non- tobacco related conditions will experience intolerable delays in the processing of their claims. These concerns are made eminently clear in our official estimate of the potential impact of compensating veterans for tobacco-related conditions which is transmitted with this letter. This is an extremely complex estimate--one which has been taken us considerable time to develop. Contributing to its complexity is the number of assumptions that had to be made about veterans' health and mortality, veterans' smoking behavior, and most significantly, the rate at which veterans' tobacco-related compensation claims may be anticipated. I believe that the assistance provided us by Jeffrey Harris, MD, Ph.D., a nationally, known expert in the area of costs associated with tobacco-related diseases, was critical to informing our decisions. Dr. Harris' report is included as part of this package. Although some of the many assumptions in our calculations could produce differing results, any reasonable calculation would know just how big an issue tobacco-related compensation is for VA, and for the Nation. I want to highlight some significant points about the estimated cost and workload impact of tobacco-related compensation. If we could process all claims immediately, we believe that compensating veterans and survivors could cost an estimated $4.4 billion in Fiscal Year 1998 and $23.8 billion over the next five years. These estimates do not include the cost of benefits to survivors of already deceased veterans. Realistically, we estimate that while we may receive over 540,000 tobacco-related claims, we will not be able to process them upon receipt. The backlog of all VA disability claims will increase from current 465,000 to over 1.5 million in Fiscal Year 1998, and increase steadily to over 2 million in Fiscal Year 2000. At the same time, the processing time of original claims will deteriorate from the current 113 days to 312 days. Because of the backlog, the actual tobacco benefits paid will likely be $40 million in the first year and $1.9 billion over the next five years unless there is a significant reallocation of resources that would permit dramatic changes in the Veterans Benefits Administration's information technology and infrastructure, and allow for massive hiring and training of new VA employees. I appreciate your patience in waiting for this estimate. We are also examining the impact of tobacco-related compensation on the VA health care system. Clearly, the service connection of substantial numbers of veterans for tobacco-related conditions that in most cases have intense and costly medical treatment associated with them has the potential for large numbers of newly eligible, high priority veterans to seek health care from VA. I hope you will agree with me that the enormity of the impact on the claims backlog and on timeless of processing as well the fiscal impact, punctuate the critical need for prompt enactment of that legislation. I will be happy to personally discuss this with you, and VA staff are available to provide further explanation to Committee staff as desired. I think that these estimates clearly explain why we should all be concerned about the implications of tobacco-related compensation. I look forward to the Committee's prompt action on the proposed legislation to remedy this situation. Please let me know if we can provide additional information. Sincerely, Hershel W. Gober, Secretary-Designate. ____ Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, March 17, 1998. Hon. Bob Stump, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: As you and your colleagues on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee make final preparations to submit your Fiscal Year 1999 budgetary views and estimates to the House Budget Committee, I am taking this opportunity to highlight and reaffirm the Administration's position on compensation benefits for tobacco-related disabilities. VA has proposed legislation to preclude service-connected benefit eligibility based upon diseases which first arise after service (and after any post-service presumptive period) if their only connection to service is the veterans' own use of tobacco products. VA's proposal would not preclude service connection for tobacco-related diseases actually manifesting themselves in service or within presumptive periods in law, and would apply only to claims filed after the date of enactment. The Department's position is based upon several considerations. First, the responsibility to compensate veterans for diseases whose connection to service is the veterans' own tobacco use--in some cases only briefly--while in service, should not rest with the Government. Second, we believe that providing benefits in these cases exceeds the American public's sense of the Government's obligations to veterans, and so threatens to undermine support for VA programs. Third, if projections regarding the magnitude of future tobacco-related claims--perhaps as many as 540,000 in a year--prove anywhere near correct, without our legislation VA's claims system could be so overwhelmed as to seriously impair its ability to process claims of any kind in a timely manner. As reflected in the President's FY '99 budget submission, enactment of VA's proposal would result in FY '99 savings of $741 million [[Page H3951]] and five-year savings of $16.9 billion. We appreciate your consideration of our views on this critical issue. Sincerely, Togo D. West, Jr., Acting Secretary. ____ DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Office of the General Counsel Washington DC, March 1, 1998. Carl Commenator, Esq., Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Commenator. You have requested that we provide, as a technical service, an explanation as to how the Administration's proposal to restrict service connection for certain tobacco-related disabilities and deaths would, if enacted, affect claimants' ability to establish service connection under certain presumptions in law and regulation. Specifically, you referenced a number of conditions presumed to be service connected if suffered by certain veterans exposed to ionizing radiation or herbicides I service. The short answer is that the Administration's proposal would in no way affect veterans' ability to establish service connection on the basis on any legal presumptions authorizing VA benefits. The Administration has proposed only that disabilities or deaths may not be considered service connected ``on the basis that'' the underlying diseases are ``attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by the veteran during service''. The effect of enactment of this proposal would be that if the only manner in which a disability or death could be considered service connected is ``on the basis that'' it is due to either the veteran's tobacco use or nicotine dependence in service, that avenue for establishing service connection would be foreclosed. The new Sec. 1103(b) of title 38, United States Code, as proposed in the Administration's bill, would specifically provide that this change in law would in no way preclude establishing service connection on the basis of the presumptions authorized under Sec. Sec. 1112 and 1116 of title 38: Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as precluding the establishment of service connection for disability or death from a disease or injury which . . . . became manifest to the requisite degree of disability during any applicable presumptive period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of this title. In other words, if a disability or death could be presumed service connected on the basis of the various provisions of sections 1112 and 1116, which of course include presumptions for certain radiation-exposed and herbicide-exposed veterans, the proposed limitation on establishing service connection ``on the basis of'' tobacco use in service would have no preclusive effect at all. For example, as authorized by Sec. 1112(c), specified cancers may be presumed service connected if suffered by certain radiation-exposed veterans. If a veteran could qualify for service connection under such a presumption, as the Administration's tobacco legislation plainly states, that service connection and resulting benefit eligibility would be unaffected by enactment of the legislation. The same is true for all other presumptions in law, including the herbicide presumptions for respiratory cancers and other illnesses authorized by Sec. 1116 of title 38. The result of enactment of our legislation would be to simply restore the manner and method by which VA adjudicated claims prior to issuance of the two General Counsel opinion on tobacco use and service connection. I hope the foregoing is fully responsive to your request. Sincerely yours, Robert E. Coy, Acting General Counsel. ____ Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, March 30, 1998. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is a draft bill, the ``Veterans Tobacco Amendments of 1998'', which I ask be referred to the appropriate committee for prompt consideration and enactment. It would relieve the Government of an unjustified liability for certain postservice health effects of veterans' tobacco use in service. On May 9, 1997, VA submitted to Congress a draft bill whose provisions included a proposal bar to establishing service connection for disabilities or deaths if their only relationship to service were the veterans' inservice nicotine dependence or use of tobacco products. The enclosed draft is substantively identical to section 105 of the bill VA offered last year, introduced in the Senate as S. 987. Our Nation has an enduring obligation to those who, because of serving in defense of our freedoms, become disabled or die. We at VA are privileged to be the ones who deliver on that obligation. However, Congress has recognized the appropriateness of boundaries to the compensation program. This bill is consistent with the 1990 budget reconciliation act, in which Congress prohibited payment of disability benefits for illnesses based solely on use of alcohol or drugs during military service. Like the consumption of alcohol, the use of tobacco products is not a requirement of military service. Most veterans, like most Americans, do not use tobacco products. It is inappropriate to compensate those veterans who do use tobacco, and their survivors, under a program developed for veterans who became disabled in service to our nation. In the debate which has ensued since our proposal of last May, we have heard no persuasive argument for why it should fall upon the government to compensate veterans for, or treat on a service-connected basis, disabilities first arising postservice whose only connections to service are the veterans' own tobacco use. We do not believe the American people consider these to be the government's responsibility. However, our proposal would not preclude service connection for tobacco-related disabilities or deaths from diseases which actually manifest themselves during service or within any applicable presumptive period, and to this extent our bill is less preclusive than the alcohol- and drug-abuse proscription. Our proposal also is limited in its reach to claims filed with VA after its enactment. Thus, veterans and survivors currently receiving these benefits and veterans and survivors filing claims prior to enactment would not be affected by the change. We are privileged to serve as stewards for veterans programs, which deservedly enjoy broad public support. With that stewardship, however, comes a responsibility to recommend appropriate changes when we sense they may become imperiled by something which could undermine public support for them. The estimated influx of tobacco-related claims-- perhaps as many as 540,000 in the next year--threatens to overwhelm our adjudication system and result in unconscionable delays for all VA claimants. Because of the enormous implications it could have in terms of both costs and impact on claims processing, the current requirement that VA consider these smoking-related disabilities and deaths to be service connected carries the potential for just such programmatic harm. This legislation would affect direct spending; therefore, it is subject to the pay-as-you-go (paygo) requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990. As reflected in the President's Budget for FY 1999, enactment of this proposal would result in paygo savings of $741 million during FY 1999 and $16.9 billion over the period FYs 1999- 2003. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this draft bill to the Congress, and that its enactment would be in accord with the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, Togo D. West, Jr., Acting Secretary. ____ A Bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that service connection for certain disabilities or deaths may not be established solely on the basis of inservice tobacco use or nicotine dependence. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Tobacco Amendments of 1998''. SECTION 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST VETERANS BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY BASED SOLELY UPON TOBACCO USE IN SERVICE. (a) Service Connection.--Subchapter 1 of chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: ``Sec. 1103. Special provisions relating to claims based upon effects of tobacco products. ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a veteran's disability or death shall not be considered to have resulted from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval or air service for purposes of this title on the basis that it resulted from injury or disease attributable in whole or in part to the use of tobacco products by the veteran during the veteran's service. ``(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as precluding the establishment of service connection for disability or death from a disease or injury which is otherwise shown to have been incurred or aggravated in active military, naval or air service or which became manifest to the requisite degree of disability during any applicable presumption period specified in section 1112 or 1116 of this title.''. (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 11 of title 38, United State Code, is amended by adding the following new item after the item relating to section 1102: ``1103. Special provisions relating to claims based upon effects of tobacco products.''. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall apply to claims received by the Secretary after the date of enactment of this Act. Mr. SHUSTER. Mr.Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has indicated that he is not supporting this piece of legislation. I heard my colleague say that this is a social safety net. Well, what we need to know that just got paved over are low-income, disabled veterans who had a funding in this bill. It was only $500 million, but it was a chance to create a permanent program for low- income, disabled veterans to get what we said they deserve. [[Page H3952]] Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to enter into a colloquy is that if they are not allowed to use the tobacco money, is it not true that there are a number of excess acres and VA sites around the country, my understanding is, on Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills? How ironic that this land is not being used for the veterans, but they want to preserve it for a greenbelt, and yet we are taking veterans' money to pave over areas for highways. Would the Chairman look at the exces