[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 70 (Wednesday, June 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
           VETERANS BENEFITS AND SERVICES AMENDMENTS OF 1994

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 435, S. 1626, a 
bill relating to the VA Home Loan Guarantee Program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill will be stated by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1626) to amend title 38, United States Code, to 
     revise the veterans' home loan program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill 
which had been reported from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, with 
amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu 
thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Benefits and 
     Services Amendments of 1994''.

     SEC. 2 REVISION IN COMPUTATION OF AGGREGATE GUARANTY FOR HOME 
                   LOANS.

       Section 3702(b) of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking out paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following new paragraph (1):
       ``(1) the loan has been repaid in full, or the Secretary 
     has been released from liability as to the loan, or if the 
     Secretary has suffered a loss on the loan, the loss has been 
     paid in full; or'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``; or'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof a period; and
       (3) by striking out paragraph (3).

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO GUARANTEE HOME REFINANCE LOANS FOR 
                   ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Loans.--Section 3710(a) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding after paragraph (10) the 
     following:
       ``(11) To refinance in accordance with subsection (e) of 
     this section an existing loan guaranteed, insured, or made 
     under this chapter, and to improve the dwelling securing such 
     loan through energy efficiency improvements, as provided in 
     subsection (d) of this section.''.
       (b) Amount of Guaranty.--Section 3710(e)(1) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) in the matter above subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or 
     subsection (a)(11)'' after ``subsection (a)(8)''; and
       (2) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) the amount of the loan may not exceed--
       ``(i) an amount equal to the sum of the balance of the loan 
     being refinanced and such closing costs (including any 
     discount permitted pursuant to section 3703(c)(3)(A) of this 
     title) as may be authorized by the Secretary, under 
     regulations which the Secretary shall prescribe, to be 
     included in such loan; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a loan for a purpose specified in 
     such subsection (a)(11), an amount equal to the sum of the 
     amount referred to with respect to the loan under clause (i) 
     of this subparagraph and the amount specified under 
     subsection (d)(2) of this section;''.
       (c) Fee.--Section 3729(a)(2)(E) of such title is amended by 
     inserting ``3710(a)(11),'' after ``3710(a)(9)(B)(i),''.

     SEC. 4. EXPANSION OF PERIOD OF VIETNAM ERA FOR CERTAIN 
                   VETERANS.

       (a) Expansion of Era.--Section 101(29) of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(29) The term `Vietnam era' means--
       ``(A) the period beginning February 28, 1961, and ending on 
     May 7, 1975, in the case of a veteran who served in the 
     Republic of Vietnam during such period; and
       ``(B) the period beginning August 5, 1964, and ending on 
     May 7, 1975, in all other cases.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1994. No person shall be 
     entitled to receive by reason of the amendment made by 
     subsection (a) any benefits for any period before such 
     date.

     SEC. 5. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO ALASKA NATIVES FROM 
                   DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF 
                   ELIGIBILITY FOR PENSION.

       Section 1503(a) of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (9);
       (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph 
     (10)(B) and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) cash, stock, land, or other interest referred to in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E) below paragraph (3) of section 
     29(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1626(c)), whether attributable to the disposition of real 
     property, profits from the operation of real property, or 
     otherwise, that is received from a Native Corporation under 
     such Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).''.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT FOR USE OF PROPERTY 
                   AT EDWARD HINES, JR., DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may 
     enter into a long-term lease or similar agreement with the 
     organization known as the The Caring Place at Loyola, Inc., a 
     not-for-profit organization operating under the laws of the 
     State of Illinois, to permit that organization to establish 
     on the grounds of the Edward Hines, Jr., Department of 
     Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hines, Illinois, a facility 
     to provide temporary accommodations for family members of 
     severely ill children who are being treated at the Loyola 
     University of Chicago Medical Center.
       (b) Terms of Agreement.--An agreement under subsection 
     (a)--
       (1) shall ensure that there shall be no cost to the Federal 
     Government as a result of the property use authorized under 
     that subsection;
       (2) may permit the use of the property without rent; and
       (3) shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that one room 
     of the facility is available for the use of a veteran (at no 
     cost to the veteran) as temporary accommodations for the 
     veteran while the veteran's severely ill child is treated at 
     the Loyola University of Chicago Medical Center.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``To amend title 38, United 
     States Code, to permit home loan guaranties for energy 
     efficiency improvements, to extend the period of the Vietnam 
     era, to exclude certain payments to Alaska natives from 
     annual income determinations for pension purposes, and for 
     other purposes.''.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, I urge my colleagues to support the pending measure, 
S. 1626, the proposed Veterans Benefits and Services Amendments of 
1994.
  Mr. President, S. 1626 as it comes before the Senate, which I will 
refer to as the ``committee bill,'' is derived from four bills: S. 
1626, which I introduced, relating to the VA home loan program; S. 677, 
introduced by Senator Paul Simon, authorizing the establishment of a 
Ronald McDonald House at the Hines VA Medical Center; S. 792, 
introduced by Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato, relating to the statutory 
date for the beginning of the Vietnam era; and S. 1958, introduced by 
my good friend, the ranking minority member of the committee, Senator 
Frank H. Murkowski, relating to the treatment of Alaska Corporation 
dividends in calculating VA pension. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
met on April 14, 1994, and voted unanimously to report this bill.
  The committe bill includes provisions which would (a) repeal the 
requirement that a veteran dispose of a home acquired with a VA-
guaranteed loan before his or her loan entitlement can be restored; (b) 
permit the cost of energy conservation improvements to be included in a 
VA-guaranteed loan refinanced for purposes of reducing the interest 
rate; (c) change the statutory date for the beginning of the Vietnam 
era from August 5, 1964, to February 28, 1961; (d) require that Alaska 
Native Corporation dividends paid under the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act be excluded from the calculation of annual income for 
purposes of determining VA pension eligibility; and (e) authorize the 
establishment of a facility on the grounds of the Hines VA Medical 
Center to provide temporary accommodations for family members of 
severely ill children being treated at a nearby university hospital.


      REVISION IN COMPUTATION OF AGGREGATE GUARANTY FOR HOME LOANS

  Mr. President, section 2 of the committee bill, which is derived from 
section 2 of S. 1626 as introduced, would repeal the requirement that a 
veteran dispose of a home acquired with a VA-guaranteed loan before his 
or her loan entitlement can be restored.
  Mr. President, under current law, a veteran may not get VA financing 
to purchase a home if the veteran owns a house acquired with a VA-
guaranteed loan, even if the loan has been paid off. Section 3702(b) of 
title 38, United States Code, provides that a veteran's loan guaranty 
entitlement cannot be restored unless two conditions have been met: 
First, the prior VA-guaranteed loan has been paid off or the VA has 
been released from liability and has recovered any losses incurred on 
the loan; and second, the house purchased with the prior loan has been 
sold or destroyed.
  Often veterans need to purchase a new home without having sold an 
existing one. During a divorce, for example, a veteran may need to buy 
a separate home and leave the existing one to his spouse and children. 
In some cases, a veteran is transferred to a new location by his or her 
employer and must buy a new home before the old one has been sold. It 
is the committee's view that, where the VA has no outstanding liability 
or loss on a prior loan, the VA home loan program should be flexible 
enough to accommodate the needs of families in transition and the loan 
guaranty entitlement should be restored so as to enable a veteran to 
purchase a new primary residence.
  Mr. President, section 2 of the committee bill would amend current 
law so as to repeal the requirement that a veteran dispose of a home 
acquired with a VA-guaranteed loan before his or her loan entitlement 
can be restored. Full payment of a prior VA-guaranteed loan or release 
of the VA from liability and compensation for any loss incurred by VA 
will contiue to be a precondition to restoration of the entitlement. 
This change will give VA greater flexibility in the administration of 
the home loan program which should enable VA to better meet veterans' 
needs with no increased risk or liability to VA.


   AUTHORITY TO GUARANTEE HOME REFINANCE LOANS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY 
                              IMPROVEMENTS

  Mr. President, section 3 of the committee bill, which is derived from 
section 3 of S. 1626 as introduced, would permit the cost of energy 
conservation improvements to be included in a loan refinanced for 
purposes of reducing the interest rate.
  The Veterans Home Loan Program Amendments of 1992, Public Law 102-
547, directed VA to carry out a program through which the cost of 
energy efficiency improvements could be included in certain VA-
guaranteed loans. The cost of energy efficiency improvements that may 
be included in a VA-guaranteed loan is limited to $3,000 or to $6,000 
if reduced utility bills will offset the increase in loan payments 
attributable to the energy improvements.
  Under the program, veterans can borrow money to make energy 
improvements when they purchase a house or when they take out a VA-
guaranteed loan secured by a mortgage on the house. However, under this 
program, energy improvement costs may not be included in loans taken 
out for the purpose of refinancing an existing loan in order to reduce 
the interest rate. Such interest rate reduction loans typically do not 
involve an income verification or property appraisal because the effect 
is to reduce the veteran's payments under an existing loan. Thousands 
of veterans have refinanced their VA-guaranteed loans during the past 2 
years, but we were unable to take advantage of the energy efficiency 
program.
  Mr. President, section 3 would permit the cost of energy efficiency 
improvements to be included in a loan refinanced for the purpose of 
reducing the interest rate. While the committee recognizes that adding 
the cost of energy improvements will increase the amount of the loan in 
relation to the value of the property, it believes that any increased 
risk from an increase in the loan-to-value ratio would be slight and 
would be offset to a significant degree by the reduced payments 
resulting from lower interest rates.


        EXPANSION OF PERIOD OF VIETNAM ERA FOR CERTAIN VETERANS

  Mr. President, section 4 of the committee bill, derived from S. 792 
as introduced, would amend section 101(29) of title 38 so as to change 
the statutory beginning date of the Vietnam era from August 5, 1964, to 
February 28, 1961, for those who served in the Republic of Vietnam. For 
those who served elsewhere, the Vietnam era would begin on August 5, 
1964.
  The committee has reported and the Senate has passed provisions 
similar to section 4 on three earlier occasions--as section 8 of S. 
2514 during the 98th Congress, as section 201 of S. 876 during the 99th 
Congress, and as section 701 of S. 2011 during the 100th Congress. 
However, our counterparts in the House have not agreed to include the 
provisions in the compromise agreements reached on the legislation 
involved, and thus, the provisions have not been enacted.
  Currently, section 101(29) of title 38 defines the Vietnam era as 
beginning on August 5, 1964, for all veterans. That date coincides with 
the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the approximate date of adoption of the 
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution by the Congress. While this is certainly a 
watershed event in our involvement in Vietnam, many United States 
service members were serving in Vietnam well before that date.
  Mr. President, section 4 of the committee bill would change the 
starting date of the Vietnam era for title 38 purposes to February 28, 
1961, for those who served in the Republic of Vietnam.
  Mr. President, the proposed February 28, 1961, date has been used in 
other statutory contexts. For example, it is the date set forth in 
Public Law 89-257 after which United States service personnel could 
accept awards from the Government of the Republic of Vietnam for 
service in Vietnam. The Armed Services Committees of the Senate and 
House report that this date was selected because that was the 
approximate date on which American military advisers began to accompany 
Vietnamese counterparts on military missions.

  February 28, 1961, is also the date selected by the Department of the 
Army for the award of the Combat Infantryman's Badge and the Combat 
Medical Badge. In addition, this date is used in section 112 of the 
Internal Revenue Code relating to the treatment of income for tax 
purposes for members of the Armed Forces serving in Vietnam in certain 
circumstances, and in section 239(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act relating to expedited naturalization based on wartime service.
  Mr. President, at the committee's March 24, 1994, hearing, this 
provision received wide support from the veterans service 
organizations. Although VA supported this proposal in the past, it 
declined to take a position on section 4 due to the potential cost 
involved in expanding the definition of the Vietnam era. Since the 
hearing, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that changing 
the date would not result in a significant cost to the Federal 
Government.


 exclusion of certain payments to alaska natives from determination of 
         annual income for purposes of eligibility for pension

  Mr. President, section 5 of the committee bill, which is derived from 
S. 1958, would require that Alaska Native Corporation dividends paid 
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act be excluded from the 
calculation of annual income for purposes of determining VA pension 
eligibility.
  Mr. President, this provision was developed by the ranking Republican 
member of the committee, Senator Murkowski, and I defer to him to 
describe the specific contents of this provision.


  authority to enter into agreement for use of property at the edward 
       hines, jr., department of veterans affairs medical center

  Mr. President, section 6 of the committee bill, which is derived from 
S. 677, would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into 
a long-term lease or similar agreement with the not-for-profit 
organization known as The Caring Place at Loyola, Inc., in order to 
establish a facility on the grounds of the Edward Hines, Jr., 
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hines, IL. The purpose 
of such a facility would be to provide temporary accommodations for 
family members of severely ill children who are being treated at the 
Loyola University of Chicago Medical Center. The long-term lease or 
similar agreement would be at no cost to VA.
  Current law restricts VA from entering into an agreement to lease VA 
land or buildings longer than 3 years. However, in this case, a 3-year 
lease or similarly limited agreement would severely impede the ability 
of The Caring Place to seek contributions and financial assistance from 
private sources. Thus, section 6 would authorize the Secretary to enter 
into a long-term lease or similar agreement with The Caring Place to 
establish a facility on VA grounds.
  Mr. President, VA has expressed to the committee that it has no long-
range plans for using the site proposed for The Caring Place and would 
agree to a long-term lease for this project. In fact, VA also provided 
the land upon which the Medical School at Loyola was built, and has 
forged a longstanding relationship with the medical school and others 
in the local community. The committee notes that the proposed site for 
The Caring Place would be close to the VA day care center and a large 
park, and would potentially enhance the functions of these existing 
facilities.
  The provision was modified during the committee markup so as to 
require, to the extent possible, that 1 of the 16 planned bedrooms 
within The Caring Place be designated for priority use for veterans 
with seriously ill children being treated at the Loyola University of 
Chicago Medical Center. The committee understands that, while The 
Caring Place anticipates charging a nominal daily rental fee under 
normal circumstances, veteran users will not be charged for use of this 
room.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, I thank the Senators who introduced the various bills 
incorporated into S. 1626 for their support of services to veterans. I 
also thank the members of the committee for their support of S. 1626 
and the members of the majority and minority committee staff who worked 
on this measure.
  I urge my colleagues to give their unanimous support to S. 1626 as 
reported and assist the Nation's veterans and their families.
  Mr. MUKOWSKI. Mr. President, initially I want to thank my colleague, 
Senator Jay Rockefeller, for his cogent explanation of the provisions 
of this important piece of legislation, and for his leadership as 
chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  With these comments, I will not cover ground which Senator 
Rockefeller has already explored so eloquently in his statement. 
Rather, I will concentrate on a portion of the bill in which I have a 
particular interest--the provisions relating to VA's pension program, 
and the treatment of dividends received by Alaska Native veterans from 
Alaska Native corporations under this program. Those provisions were 
originally contained in S. 1958, which I introduced on March 22, 1994, 
and which was cosponsored by my colleagues, Senators Stevens and Akaka. 
To reduce that bill--and section 5 of S. 1626, which incorporates the 
substance of S. 1958--to their most essential terms, they require the 
Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to implement the intent of Congress 
as expressed when it enacted, and subsequently amended, the Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act [ANCSA].
  To fully explain why this legislation is necessary, I need to outline 
briefly the general terms of ANCSA and, in particular, a critical 
provision of the statute relating to needs-based Federal benefits 
programs. The overall purpose of ANCSA, as stated in section 2(a) of 
the legislation itself, is to provide a ``a fair and just settlement of 
all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal 
land claims.'' ANCSA was, and remains, an unusual--indeed, a landmark--
piece of legislation in resolving Native land claims. In the words of 
our colleague, Senator Bingaman, ANCSA adopted

       * * * a novel, experimental approach in [the Federal 
     Government's] relationship with Native Americans. It departed 
     from the conventional method of * * * settling tribal land 
     claims [by] creating * * * a framework for * * * 
     administering Native lands and funds through a * * * 
     [Native]-run corporate structure.--S. Rpt. No. 100-201 45 
     (Additional Views).

  To summarize, under ANCSA Native Alaskans received a combination of 
cash, mineral lease proceeds, and land in exchange for the 
extinguishment of their aboriginal land claims. Those assets, however, 
were not distributed directly to individual Native Alaskans when ANCSA 
was enacted in 1971. Rather, ANCSA authorized the creation of 12 Native 
owned and operated regional corporations to administer those assets for 
the benefit of Alaska Native shareholders. These corporations continue 
to exist today, and they distribute funds received in settlement of 
Native land claims, and funds generated from corporate earnings, to 
Native village corporations and to Alaska Native shareholders.
  When ANCSA was enacted, the question arose as to whether these 
distributions should be taken into account in determining whether an 
Alaska Native would be eligible to receive Federal Food Stamp 
assistance. The Congress concluded--wisely, I think--that it would not 
be fair to penalize Alaska Natives for settling their land claims by 
causing them to lose eligibility for food stamps as a result of 
receiving settlement payments. Thus, ANCSA, as originally enacted, 
contained a provision, codified at 43 U.S.C. section 1626(b), which 
stated that ``in determining the eligibility of any household to 
participate in the food stamp program, any compensation, remuneration, 
revenue, or other benefit received by any member of any such household 
shall be disregarded.'' It was only when ANCSA was amended in 1988 that 
this compensation disregard provision was expanded.
  As was stated in the Senate Report accompanying the 1988 amendments 
to ANCSA:

       Currently, section 29 of ANCSA directs that any 
     compensation, remuneration, revenue of other benefit received 
     pursuant to ANCSA ``shall be disregarded'' in determining 
     eligibility to participate in the Food Stamp Program. Natives 
     have been denied benefits or have received diminished 
     benefits in other Federal or federally-assisted programs, 
     because of benefits received under ANCSA. Accordingly, the 
     new subsection (c) in this section clarifies the present 
     protections as including all Federal or federally-assisted 
     programs. It also specifically exempts dividends up to $2,000 
     per individual per year and dividends and distribution of 
     stock from consideration in eligibility determinations. 
     Application of less restrictive eligibility tests are not 
     prohibited by this language. S. Rpt. 100-201 at 39 (emphasis 
     added).

  Based on this clear expression of intent to broaden and expand the 
already-existing disregard provisions within section 29 of ANCSA, the 
statute was amended to read as follows:

       In determining the eligibility of a household, an 
     individual Native, or a descendant of a Native * * * to----

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (3) receive financial assistance or benefits, based on 
     need, under any Federal program or federally-assisted 
     program, none of the following received from a Native 
     corporation, shall be considered or taken into account as an 
     asset or resource:
       (A) cash (including cash dividends on stock received from a 
     Native corporation) to the extent that it does not, in the 
     aggregate, exceed $2,000 per individual per annum;
       (B) stock (including stock issued or distributed by a 
     Native corporation as a dividend or distribution on stock);
       (C) a partnership interest;
       (D) land or an interest in land (including land or an 
     interest in land received from a Native corporation as a 
     dividend or distribution on stock); and
       (E) an interest in a settlement trust.--43 U.S.C. section 
     1626(c) (emphasis added).

  It seems to me, Mr. President, that the law could hardly be clearer. 
By any reading of this statute, and the explanation of it contained in 
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Report, one can 
only conclude that ANCSA payments are to be disregarded not only for 
purposes of Food Stamps, but for any and all Federal needs-based 
benefits programs. To the extent that the words of the statute, or the 
Senate's expression of purpose, might have admitted to any ambiguity--
and, frankly, I do not see how anyone could contend that they do--the 
requirement that ANCSA be construed in a fashion sympathetic to Native 
interests, see, e.g., Cape Fox Corp. v. U.S., 4 Cl. Ct. 223, 231 
(1983), would require that any such ambiguity be resolved to require 
the disregarding of ANCSA payments. When one considers that the needs-
based benefit program in question is a veterans program--a program 
which embodies a long-standing tradition of resolving doubt in the 
veteran's favor--the door should have been slammed, I think, on any 
thought that ANCSA dividends might be used to reduce pension benefits 
to which a veteran might be eligible.
  Unfortunately, the VA's General Counsel has taken a differing view. 
In two separate legal opinions, the General Counsel has stated, in 
effect, that despite the foregoing, VA shall take ANCSA dividends into 
account for purposes of determining eligibility for, and the amount of 
benefit received under, VA's veterans pension program. In my view, Mr. 
President, this conclusion is totally erroneous.
  As is made clear in ANCSA, payments received under ANCSA--whether 
they be cash, cash dividends--up to $2,000 per year, stock dividends, 
land, whatever--are not to be considered or taken into account for 
purposes of determining eligibility for ``benefits, based on need, 
under any Federal program.'' Equally, ANCSA payments are not to be 
taken into account for purposes of diminishing needs-based Federal 
benefits. VA's pension program--which is not a retirement pension 
program but is, rather, an income maintenance program which assures 
that wartime veterans who are permanently and totally disabled due to 
nonservice connected disability will not be forced to live below 
subsistence income levels--is clearly a benefit, based on need. And 
yet, VA allows payments received pursuant to ANCSA to be taken into 
account in determining if one is eligible to receive pension benefits.

  To illustrate, under current VA policy a veteran having an annual 
income of $6,000 who would otherwise be eligible for pension would be 
disqualified if he or she were to receive $2,000 per year in cash 
dividends under ANCSA. Equally--and more importantly for practical 
purposes--VA offsets ANCSA dividends on a dollar-for-dollar basis when 
it computes the amount of pension benefits to be paid. So, for example, 
a VA pension recipient who would otherwise receive $7,397 per year in 
pension benefits would only receive $5,397 if he or she were also to be 
a recipient of $2,000 per year in ANCSA distributions. This despite the 
clear indication of congressional intent to the contrary.
  My colleagues might ask how VA justifies such action. I am told that 
VA's General Counsel reasons that ANCSA says that cash paid to Alaska 
Natives shall not be taken into account as assets or resources. A 
person's assets or resources, VA continues, are akin to his or her net 
worth and, therefore, Congress intended, according to VA, that ANCSA 
payments not be taken into account for determining eligibility only for 
means tested benefits programs that rely on net worth computations--not 
annual income computations--in determining eligibility. Since 
eligibility for VA pension programs is governed by the applicant's 
annual income, not his or her net worth, VA concludes that ANCSA's 
directive that Native corporation dividends be disregarded does not 
apply to VA pension programs, even though eligibility is based on need.
  Mr. President, the Congress had no such income versus net worth 
distinction in mind when it expanded the disregard provision of ANCSA. 
It had in mind something much more direct: it wanted to preclude ANCSA 
payments from causing Alaska Natives to be ineligible for food stamps, 
and any other needs-based Federal benefits, and it wanted to assure 
that such benefits would not be diminished as a result of ANCSA 
receipts. Section 5 of S. 1626 would see to it that that clear intent 
would be put into effect by forbidding VA from taking ANCSA payments 
into account for purposes of its pension programs.
  I am pleased, Mr. President, that members of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs have been supportive of this provision, and I am 
equally pleased that VA has expressed no opposition to it. I ask that 
the Members of the Senate also support this provision--and that they 
support enactment of S. 1626 in its entirety. Finally, Mr. President, I 
want to express my gratitude to the committee's distinguished chairman, 
Senator Rockefeller, and to his able staff for facilitating the 
approval of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the substitute is agreed 
to.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the bill is considered read 
for the third time.
  The bill was read for the third time.

                          ____________________