[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 2315. A bill to require the Attorney General to develop model 
legislation for the States to assure confidentiality of communications 
between victims of sexual assault or domestic violence victims and 
their counselors, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


           rape and asssult victims counseling protection act

  Mr. HATCH Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Kennedy to 
introduce legislation that seeks to remedy an unacceptable and 
outrageous development for women across this country. This bill 
represents a revised version of S. 2240, a bill I introduced a month 
ago titled the Rape Victims' Protection Act.
  On June 24, 1994, the Washington Post reported that earlier that week 
the YWCA chapter in Springfield, MA, was ordered by a Massachusetts 
court to turn its rape counseling files over to the defense attorney of 
an accused rapist.
  The rape counseling center had previously refused to turn over the 
files.
  Mr. President, as a result of this decision, women now seeking rape 
counseling will do so knowing that everything they say to their 
counselor is, in effect, available to their alleged attacker.
  The impact on women is obvious. Rape counseling services offered by 
the YWCA or other organizations offer an invaluable service to women 
victimized by sexual assaults. But there can be no question that the 
removal of any confidentiality between the rape victim and her 
counselor will discourage women from seeking desperately needed help in 
a time of real need and distress.
  Mr. President, the bill I introduced last month and the revised 
version I am introducing today with Senator Kennedy represents our 
joint effort to best deal with this situation. This bill consists of 
three parts.
  First, it expresses the sense of the Senate that no court should 
order the disclosure of confidential communications between victims of 
sexual assault or domestic violence and their therapists and trained 
counselors unless, at a minimum, the defendant has made an adequate 
showing of the need for the disclosure, and the court has established 
adequate procedural safeguards against unnecessary or damaging 
disclosures.
  Second, it requires that the Attorney General develop model 
legislation to adequately protect the confidentiality of sexual assault 
victims. Our goal is to provide guidance to States in developing 
effective and constitutional State laws in this regard.
  Finally, the bill directs the Judicial Conference to review the 
Federal evidentiary rules with respect to the confidentiality of 
communications between assault victims and their counselors in Federal 
court proceedings.
  Mr. President, it is imperative that we act swiftly in this area. The 
bill I introduced last month was a much more direct way of immediately 
dealing with this issue. I appreciate and understand some of the 
concerns that have been raised regarding that approach.
  I would like to thank and compliment Senator Kennedy for his efforts. 
He and I share the same concerns about this recent State court ruling 
as well as a commitment to finding the best means to ensure that the 
confidentiality of communications between sexual assault victims and 
trained counselors will be adequately protected in judicial 
proceedings.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Hatch 
today in introducing the Rape and Assault Victims Counseling Protection 
Act.
  This legislation will guarantee that when victims of sexual assault 
or domestic violence turn to counseling programs to help them cope with 
the trauma of these brutal crimes, their counseling sessions will 
remain private and confidential.
  I was shocked to learn recently that such confidentiality is not 
always assured. In Massachusetts, rape crisis centers have been ordered 
by the courts to divulge confidential counseling records to counsel for 
the defendant in criminal cases. Notwithstanding the State 
legislature's enactment of a law creating an absolute privilege for 
communciations between sexual assault victims and their trained 
counselors, the State's high court has ruled that criminal defendants 
have a constitutional right to obtain such records in certain 
circumstances.
  Most recently, the YWCA in Springfield, MA, which conducts a rape 
crisis counseling program, was ordered to produce confidential files to 
defense counsel in a rape case. The YWCA, seeking to protect the 
victim's privacy, initially defied the court's order. But as the 
penalties mounted for contempt of court, they were forced to comply.
  The consequences of violating the confidentiality of these counseling 
programs are potentially disastrous. Such programs help victims recover 
from the severe effects of sexual assault and domestic violence. By 
promoting the physical and emotional well-being of the victims, the 
programs frequently enable the victim to report the crime and cooperate 
in the prosecution of the perpetrator.
  Yet counseling programs can achieve these benefits only if the 
victims know that the counseling sessions will remain confidential. 
Otherwise, they will be unable to develop the relationship of trust 
with their counselors that is essential to effective treatment. Many 
will decline to participate in counseling programs altogether.
  In fact, the Springfield YWCA reports that immediately after the 
court order, several clients of its rape crisis program called to say 
they were dropping out.
  It is easy to see that if confidential communications between victims 
and counselors are accessible to defendants charged with the crime, the 
victims are faced with an impossible choice--forego the counseling that 
can help them recover, or do not report the crime. Often, victims who 
go to counseling and report the crime would be violated a second time, 
when their most private thoughts and feelings about the crime are 
revealed to the perpetrator, and perhaps even to the public in open 
court.

  These women deserve better, and the States have adopted a variety of 
different approaches to the problem. Some have created an absolute 
privilege protecting the confidentiality of these records--though some 
courts, including the court in Massachusetts, have struck down an 
absolute privilege as a violation of the defendant's constitutional 
rights.
  Other States have adopted a qualified privilege that gives defendants 
access to the records in certain narrow circumstances and subject to 
certain strict procedures. Still other States have adopted balancing 
tests that weigh the evidentiary value of the communications against 
the effects of disclosure on the victim and her treatment.
  As State legislatures continue to struggle with this issue, they 
should be encouraged to adopt standards to guarantee the maximum 
possible protection for the victim's privacy, without violating a 
criminal defendant's rights.
  The legislation we are introducing today will help to ensure that 
result. First, it states the sense of the Senate that no court should 
order the disclosure of confidential communications between victims of 
sexual assault or domestic violence and their therapists or trained 
counselors unless, at a minimum, the defendant has made an adequate 
showing of the need for the disclosure, and the court has established 
adequate procedural safeguards against unnecessary or damaging 
disclosures.

  Second, it directs the Justice Department to study and evaluate the 
manner in which the States have addressed this issue, and to develop 
model legislation for use by the States. In the last Congress, we 
directed the Justice Department to study and develop model legislation 
on the crime of stalking. There, as here, the goal was to guide the 
States toward enactment of laws that would be both effective and 
constitutional. I understand that a number of States have found the 
Justice Department's stalking report and model legislation useful, and 
I am hopeful that the legislation we are introducing today will prove 
equally valuable.
  Finally, the bill directs the Judicial Conference to evaluate whether 
the Federal Rules of Evidence should be amended to guarantee the 
confidentiality of communications between assault victims and their 
counselors in Federal court proceedings.
  Clearly, we need to do more to protect the rights of the victims of 
sexual assault and domestic violence, and to preserve the 
confidentiality of their treatment for the trauma they have suffered. 
This bill is a major step toward achieving these goals, and I look 
forward to working with Senator Hatch for its early enactment.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BENNETT (for himself, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 2319. A bill to amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 
Act to authorize additional measures to carry out the control of 
salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-effective manner; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


               colorado river basin salinity control act

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation which 
will amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and authorize 
additional measures to carry out the salinity program.
  The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program has been authorized 
by Congress and implemented by Federal and State entities for the last 
20 years. There is now a need to update and revise the authorizations 
provided for in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act so that 
the Bureau of Reclamation [Reclamation] can move ahead in a more 
responsive and cost-effective way with the portion of the program which 
Reclamation is responsible for administering. The following statement 
provides general background as to the purposes and legislative history 
of the Salinity Control Act and the identified reforms necessary to the 
act.


                               background

  In the 1960's and early 1970's, rising salinity levels in the Lower 
Colorado River caused great concern because of damages inflicted by 
salt dissolved in the water. This damage was occurring in the United 
States and Mexico. In 1972, with the passage of the Clean Water Act, it 
was apparent that water quality standards needed to be adopted in the 
United States, and a plan of implementation to meet those water quality 
standards needed to be identified. The U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA] published water quality standards for the Colorado River. 
The United States modified the treaty with Mexico to add to the United 
States' commitments a water quality parameter.
  The Colorado River Basin States were involved in many of the 
discussions with respect to both the Mexico commitment and the water 
quality standards. Through the formation of a Colorado River Basin 
Salinity Control Forum, the States became collectively and formally 
involved in discussions with Federal representatives concerning the 
quality of the Colorado River.
  At the urging, and with the cooperations of the basin States and the 
State Department, in 1974, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 
Act was enacted by Congress. That authority became formally known as 
Public Law 93-320 (88 Stat. 266), the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
Control Act. That act consisted of two titles. Title I addressed the 
United States commitment to Mexico, and title II addressed the 
authorization for programs above Imperial Dam to help control the water 
quality in the river for the benefit of users in the United States.

  The amendments now being proposed in this legislation are exclusively 
related to title II authorizations. Title I has not been amended since 
the original enactment in 1974. Title II has received minor 
modifications as authorities were given to Reclamation to consider 
salinity control implementation strategies in some additional areas of 
the Colorado River Basin. More importantly, title II was amended in 
1984 by Public Law 98-569 (98 Stat. 2933). The 1984 amendments provided 
for a formally constituted U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 
program within the Salinity Control Act. The amendments gave additional 
responsibilities to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management [BLM] to seek 
for the cost-effective salinity control strategies. The amendments 
further described the basin States' cost-sharing responsibilities with 
respect to the USDA program, and further increased the cost-sharing 
requirements of the basin States with respect to newly authorized and 
implemented Reclamation programs.


                             needed reforms

  The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum [Forum] has perceived 
for some period of time and need for amendments to the authorization 
relating to Reclamation's program. It has been felt by the States that 
the program has, at times, been encumbered by formalities imposed by 
Reclamation and the authorizing legislation which related to procedures 
Reclamation used in implementing major water development projects in 
decades past. It is felt that authorization which would allow 
Reclamation to avoid some of these encumbrances and move more 
expediently and cost effectively to the best salinity control 
opportunities would ensure compliance with the water quality standards 
of the Colorado River, and this compliance could be accomplished at 
less cost.
  There is a need to allow Reclamation to consider salinity control 
strategy implementation in three geographic areas where planning 
documents have been prepared and cost-effective salinity control 
strategies have been identified. In the past, for Reclamation to 
implement salinity strategies in new areas, formal approval by Congress 
has been required. It is viewed that this is encumbering.
  Further, it is felt that Reclamation needs flexibility so that it 
might move to opportunities with the private sector to cost-share, 
offer grants, and/or allow the private sector, rather than the Federal 
Government to contract for the expenditure of appropriated funds. In 
this manner the limited dollars would not be partially lost through 
expenses which have been directly identified with the use of Federal 
procurement procedures.

  Last, Reclamation was authorized a ceiling expenditure in 1974 by 
Congress. After two decades, the funds expended are approaching the 
authorized ceiling. It is believed that it would be more appropriate 
for a $75 million authorization provision be placed on the program. 
This will allow the salinity program to move forward for approximately 
3 to 5 years at proposed spending levels.
  The Salinity Forum believes that legislative reform for the 
Reclamations program should be tailored after authorities given to the 
USDA by the Congress in 1984. The inspector general for the Department 
of the Interior released findings in 1993. Those findings are 
incorporated in a document entitled, ``Audit Report, Implementation of 
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, Bureau of 
Reclamation'' (March 1993). The above legislative proposals are in 
keeping with the recommendations of the inspector general.
  Earlier this year, Reclamation sent out a broad-based mailing to 
affected parties and interest groups asking for recommendations 
concerning the need for potential future efforts by Reclamation with 
respect to salinity control. Further, Reclamation asked for input as to 
how the program might possibly be reformulated. The responses received 
by Reclamation are in keeping with this legislation and it is my 
understanding that the Bureau of Reclamation is expected to support 
this bill.
  To that end, I appreciate the excellent working relationship that has 
existed between the Commissioner's Office of the Bureau of Reclamation, 
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, Senator Campbell's 
office and my office as we have worked out the details of this 
legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (by request):
  S. 2320. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate 
the requirement that veterans of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and 
the dependents and survivors of such veterans be paid certain benefits 
in Philippine pesos; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                   PHILLIPINES VETERANS CURRENCY ACT

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2320, a bill to eliminate the 
requirement that veterans of the Philippine Commonwealth Army including 
members of recognized guerrilla units, and the new Philippine Scouts 
and their dependents and survivors be paid certain veterans benefits in 
pesos. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to 
the President of the Senate by letter dated March 15, 1994.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record with Secretary Brown's transmittal letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2320

       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 ``Philippine Veterans Currency 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC 2. ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS OF PAYMENT OF CERTAIN 
                   BENEFITS IN PHILIPPINE PESOS.

       (a) In General.--Section 107 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in the flush matter in subsection (a) below paragraph 
     (3)--
       (A) by striking out ``in pesos''; and
       (B) by striking out ``in Philippine pesos''; and
       (2) in the flush matter in subsection (b) below paragraph 
     (3)--
       (A) by striking out ``in pesos''; and
       (B) by striking out ``in Philippine pesos''.
       (b) Survivors and Dependents' Educational Assistance.--(1) 
     Section 3532(d) of such title is amended by striking out ``in 
     Philippine pesos''.
       (2) Section 3565(b)(1) of such title is amended by striking 
     out ``in Philippine pesos''.
                                  ____



                            The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 1993.
     Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: There is transmitted herewith a draft 
     bill entitled the ``Philippine Veterans Currency Act of 
     1993.'' I request that this bill be referred to the 
     appropriate committee for prompt consideration and enactment.
       This draft bill would eliminate the requirement that 
     veterans of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including 
     members of recognized guerrilla units, and the New Philippine 
     Scouts, and their dependents and survivors, be paid certain 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits in pesos. This 
     draft bill would not affect the rate at which payment is made 
     to these beneficiaries; it would only eliminate the 
     restriction on the currency in which payment is made.
       Section 107(a) and (b) of title 38, United States Code, 
     provides that the payment to Philippine Commonwealth Army 
     veterans, including members of recognized guerrilla units, 
     and veterans of the so-called New Philippine Scouts of 
     certain VA benefits ``shall be made at a rate in pesos as is 
     equivalent to $0.50 for each dollar authorized.'' Similarly, 
     section 3565(b)(1) of title 38, United States Code, states 
     that educational assistance allowances authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. Sec. 3532 and the special training allowance 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3542 for children of 
     Commonwealth Army veterans and veterans of the New Philippine 
     Scouts ``shall be paid at a rate in Philippine pesos 
     equivalent to $0.50 for each dollar.'' This reference to the 
     peso in regard to the payment of certain benefits to 
     Philippine veterans and their dependents and survivors 
     originated in the First Supplemental Surplus Appropriation 
     Rescission Act of 1946, ch. 30, 60 Stat. 6, 14, and the 
     Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act of 
     1946, ch. 271, 60 Stat. 221, 224.
       The legislative history of these acts contains little 
     reference to payment in pesos and does not explain the 
     rationale for imposing this restriction on the currency for 
     payment. However, we understand that, at the time the 
     Congress enacted the First and Second Supplemental Surplus 
     Appropriation Rescission Acts in 1946, the Philippine 
     government was concerned with maintaining the stability of 
     the Philippine currency in the face of widespread 
     inflation and black-marketing. Shortly thereafter, the 
     Second Congress of the Philippines enacted Republic Act 
     No. 529, approved on June 16, 1950, which made it illegal 
     to require payment of any obligation in gold or in any 
     particular kind of currency other than Philippine 
     currency. Payment of certain veterans' benefits to 
     veterans of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the New 
     Philippine Scouts and their dependents and survivors in 
     pesos rather than in United States dollars was in keeping 
     with the policy of the Philippine government to maintain 
     the stability of the Philippine currency.
       For approximately the past 20 years, these statutory 
     provisions requiring payment to be made in pesos have been 
     implemented by the use of a procedure called ``lipsticking'' 
     of checks. U.S. Treasury Dep't Circular No. 1081, 1st Rev. 
     (Nov. 8, 1972) and 2d Rev. (Dec. 28, 1976), copies enclosed, 
     provided that, to assist the Philippine government in 
     implementing its foreign exchange regulations, checks drawn 
     on the United States Treasury in dollars for delivery to 
     certain Philippine citizens in the Philippines were to be 
     ``lipsticked,'' i.e., overprinted in red ink with a 
     restrictive legend by the Treasury regional disbursing office 
     in Manila. Under the revised circular, this legend reads: 
     ``Payable only in pesos through authorized agent banks of the 
     Central Bank of the Philippines and Postal Offices.'' General 
     use of the lipsticking procedure apparently began as a result 
     of Note No. 68-533, issued November 27, 1968, by the 
     Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the 
     Philippines, which contained proposals for channeling United 
     States expenditures into the Philippine government banking 
     system. The United States Embassy responded in Note No. 297 
     dated April 23, 1969, in which it agreed to overprint all 
     United States Treasury dollar checks issued and delivered in 
     the Philippines to Philippine citizens in order to assist in 
     the implementation of Philippine foreign exchange 
     regulations.
       Last year the Department of State (DoS) requested that the 
     Department of the Treasury no longer ``lipstick'' checks 
     issued to Philippine citizens. According to the enclosed 
     February 5, 1992, letter from the First Secretary, Economic 
     Section, American Embassy, Manila, Philippines, the DoS 
     believes that lipsticking is no longer necessary on dollar 
     checks issued to Philippine citizens in the Philippines 
     because of Central Bank Circular 1318, which liberalizes 
     Philippine foreign exchange control measures. VA, however, 
     was unable to agree to elimination of lipsticking of 
     veterans-benefit checks. The VA General Counsel concluded, 
     in O.G.C. Advis. 36-92, that 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 107(a) 
     and (b) and 3565(b) do not permit elimination of the 
     restrictive endorsement on checks issued in United States 
     dollars to beneficiaries who are veterans of the 
     Commonwealth Army or the New Philippine Scouts, and their 
     dependents and survivors, who reside in the Philippines. 
     We understand that lipsticking of other Treasury checks 
     issued to Filipinos has been discontinued and that the 
     only checks which are currently lipsticked by the 
     Department of the Treasury are those issued to veterans of 
     the Commonwealth Army and the New Philippine Scouts and 
     their dependents and survivors who are entitled to certain 
     veterans' benefits and who reside in the Philippines.
       It appears that the rationale for requiring payment of 
     veterans' benefits in pesos to certain Philippine veterans no 
     longer exists. Congress apparently imposed this restriction 
     in 1946 because it was in keeping with the policy of the 
     Philippine government to maintain the stability of the 
     Philippine currency. However, a February 26, 1992, letter 
     from the Deputy Governor, Central Bank of the Philippines, 
     and a June 1992 cable from the American Embassy, Manila, 
     Philippines, copies enclosed, stated that the Philippine 
     Central Bank and the Department of Foreign Affairs of the 
     Philippine government have indicated no objection to the 
     discontinuation of lipsticking. Rather, the effect of the 
     restrictive endorsement on Treasury checks has seemingly been 
     nullified by a September 8, 1992, circular letter issued by 
     the Central Bank of the Philippines, copy enclosed, which 
     provides that effective October 1, 1992, United States 
     Treasury checks, whether or not they are lipsticked, may be 
     cashed in foreign exchange or converted into pesos at the 
     option of the payee. The circular states that this policy is 
     consistent with Central Bank Circular No. 1353, dated August 
     24, 1992, copy enclosed, which liberalized Philippine foreign 
     exchange regulations.
       In light of the foregoing, we see no reason to continue the 
     requirement that payments to certain Philippine veterans be 
     made in pesos and recommend that it be eliminated. This 
     proposal would result in no additional benefit costs and 
     would result in insignificant administrative cost savings. We 
     urge that the House promptly consider and pass this 
     legislative item.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                      Jesse Brown,
                                                Secretary.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (by request):
  S. 2321. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to make 
eligible for burial in the national cemeteries the spouses of veterans 
who predecease the veterans; to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.


             eligibility for burial in national cemeteries

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2321, a bill to restore the statutory 
eligibility for burial in national cemeteries of spouses who predecease 
individuals eligible for such burial. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter 
dated July 26, 1993.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record with Secretary Brown's transmittal letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2321

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR BURIAL IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES OF 
                   SPOUSES WHO PREDECEASE VETERANS.

       Section 2402(5) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking out ``The surviving spouse,'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``The spouse, surviving spouse,''.
                                  ____

                                                     The Secretary


                                           Of Veterans Affairs

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 1993.
     Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am forwarding draft legislation to 
     clarify the eligibility of veterans' spouses for burial in 
     national cemeteries. I request that this bill be referred to 
     the appropriate committee for prompt consideration and 
     enactment.
       As originally enacted in the National Cemeteries Act of 
     1973, section 1002(5) (now section 2402(5)) of title 38, 
     United States Code, governing eligibility for national 
     cemetery burial, authorized interment of the husbands, wives, 
     surviving spouses, and minor children of individuals eligible 
     for national-cemetery burial based on their military service. 
     The Veterans' Benefits Improvement and Health Care 
     Authorization Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-576, 
     Sec. 701(54)(B), 100 Stat. 3248, 3295 (1986), made a 
     technical amendment to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(5) (now 
     Sec. 2402(5)) making that provision gender neutral by 
     deleting reference to the ``wife'' or ``husband'' of the 
     eligible individual. As a result, section 2402(5) now refers 
     only to the ``surviving spouse,'' not the spouse, of the 
     eligible person. By providing eligibility for only the 
     ``surviving'' spouse, this change had the unintended effect 
     of deleting statutory provision for National Cemetery burial 
     of a veteran's spouse who predeceases the veteran.
       Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulations at 38 
     C.F.R. Sec. 1.620(f) continue to provide eligibility for a 
     spouse who predeceases an eligible individual. The draft bill 
     would restore the reference in the statute to eligibility for 
     the spouse who predeceases the eligible individual.
       Because enactment of our proposal would effect only a 
     technical clarification of the law as currently being 
     applied, VA estimates there would be no associated 
     administrative or benefit costs.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program to the submission of this draft bill to the Congress.
           Sincerely yours,
                                              Jesse Brown.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (by request):
  S. 2322. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase 
the cost that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may incur to pay for a 
contract burial of a nonservice-connected disabled veteran who dies in 
a Department of Veterans Affairs facility, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


  increase in department of veterans affairs contract burial authority

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2322, a bill to amend title 38, 
United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
pay the actual cost of a contract burial, not to exceed $600, to bury a 
nonservice-connected veteran who dies in a Department of Veteran 
Affairs [VA] facility and for other purposes. The Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by 
letter dated June 21, 1993.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record with Secretary Brown's transmittal letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2322

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AMOUNT OF CONTRACT BURIAL COSTS OF NONSERVICE-
                   CONNECTED DISABLED VETERANS WHO DIE IN 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FACILITIES.

       (a) Authority.--Paragraph (1) of section 2303(a) of title 
     38, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``within 
     such limits,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``within such 
     limits (in the case of a service-connected veteran) or at a 
     cost not to exceed $600 (in the case of a nonservice-
     connected veteran),''
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Such section is further amended 
     by striking out ``section 1701(4)'' in the matter above 
     paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 
     1701(3)''.

     SEC. 2. REVISED SUBMITTAL DATE FOR REPORT ON ANNUAL ANALYSIS 
                   OF DEPARTMENTWIDE ADMISSIONS POLICIES.

       Section 8110(a)(3)(B) of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking out ``December 1'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``April 1''.
                                  ____

                                The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 1993.
     Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is a draft bill ``To amend title 
     38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs to pay the actual cost of a contract burial, 
     not to exceed $600, to bury a nonservice-connnected veteran 
     who dies in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility 
     and for other purposes.'' Included in the draft bill is a 
     technical correction to amend section 2303(a) by substituting 
     1701(3) for 1701(4). Also included in the draft bill is an 
     amendment to extend the bed level report deadline from 
     December 1 to April 1 of the following year. We ask that it 
     be referred to the appropriate committee for prompt 
     consideration and favorable action.
       Currently, subsection (a)(1) of section 2303 of title 38, 
     United States Code, grants VA authority to pay the actual 
     cost, not to exceed $300, to bury a nonservice connected 
     veteran who dies in a VA facility.
       We have found that since 1978 when this authority was last 
     increased from $250 to $300, funeral expenses have increased 
     significantly. As a result, the $300 statutory limitation has 
     made it increasingly difficult, in most areas of the country, 
     for the VA to find a mortuary willing to provide traditional 
     funeral and burial services (i.e., preparation of the body, 
     clothing, casket and transportation of the body) for an 
     amount they claim fails to cover their expenses.
       The draft bill would buttress and purchasing power of this 
     authority which, since 1978, has been increasingly eroded by 
     inflation. Specifically, it would amend subsection 2303(a)(1) 
     of title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 
     to pay the actual cost, not to exceed $600, for a contract 
     burial.
       This increase in VA's authority applies to contracts for 
     burial services of unclaimed nonservice-connected veterans. 
     The allowance in the case of a veteran whose remains are 
     claimed by family or friends who assume responsibility for 
     the veteran's burial will remain $300. A veteran who dies as 
     a result of a service-connected disability will continue to 
     be eligible to receive the higher amount specified in section 
     2307, title 38, United States Code, for his/her burial.
       The change in the statutory limitation from $300 to $600 
     for each contract burial reflects the increased rates charged 
     for such services and would provide the VA with the necessary 
     monetary means to meet those demands.
       The technical correction would amend section 2303(a) of 
     title 38, United States Code, by substituting the intended 
     references to section 1701(3), pertaining to ``facilities of 
     the Department'' for section 1701(4), ``non-Department 
     facilities.''
       Under existing law, VA's Under Secretary for Health must, 
     at the end of each fiscal year, analyze department wide 
     admission policies and available data on the numbers of 
     eligible veterans VA rejects for care or does not provide 
     with timely care. The law further requires the Under 
     Secretary for Health to report on and make recommendations to 
     the Secretary concerning the adequacy of VA operating bed 
     levels, the appropriate distribution of those beds, and the 
     demographic characteristics of the veteran population seeking 
     VA care. The Secretary must then, by December 1 of each year, 
     report that information to the Congress together with 
     recommendations regarding the number of operating beds VA 
     requires to meet the demand, and staffing and funding levels 
     required for such operating bed levels.
       Experience has demonstrated that VA cannot gather 
     meaningful data in time to provide the Congress with useful 
     information by December 1 of each year. To meet the report 
     deadline, VA must use incomplete preliminary fiscal year 
     data. Final fiscal year data is generally not available until 
     mid-December. The time required for analysis of that data and 
     development of a report to Congress can also be lengthy.
       Consequently, changing the due date for this report to 
     April 1 of the following year would permit VA to furnish the 
     Congress with useful and valid information based on data that 
     has undergone the sort of thorough scrutiny necessary for the 
     Secretary to make meaningful recommendations to the 
     congressional committees needing the report.
       VA estimates the costs from enactment of the proposed 
     contract burial of unclaimed nonservice-connected veterans' 
     provision to be $545,794 in 1994; $570,355 in FY 1995; 
     $596,021 in FY 1996; $622,842 in FY 1997; and $650,870 in FY 
     1998.
       Enactment of extending the bed level report deadline 
     proposal would entail no new costs.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to the submission of this legislative proposal 
     and that its enactment would be in accord with the program of 
     the President.
           Sincerely yours,

                                              Jesse Brown.

                                 ______

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (by request):
  S. 2323. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the 
coverage and protection provided to medical quality assurance records 
by section 5705 of that title; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


  department of veterans affairs quality assurance program amendments

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2323, a bill to amend title 38, 
United States Code, to clarify the coverage and protection provided to 
medical quality assurance records by section 5705 of that title. The 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the 
President of the Senate by letter dated March 15, 1994.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record with Secretary Brown's transmittal letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2323

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. BAN ON DISCLOSURE OF MEDICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE 
                   INFORMATION.

       Subsection (a) of section 5705 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subsection (b), no part of 
     any medical quality assurance record or document described in 
     subsection (a)(1) may be subject to discovery or admitted 
     into evidence in any judicial or administrative proceeding.
       ``(B) An individual who reviews or creates medical quality 
     assurance records or documents for the Department or who 
     participates in any proceeding that reviews or creates such 
     records or documents may not be permitted or required to 
     testify in any judicial or administrative proceeding with 
     respect to such records or documents or with respect to any 
     finding, recommendation, evaluation, opinion, or action taken 
     by such person in connection with such records or documents 
     except as provided in this section.''.

     SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE AUTHORITY.

       (a) Clarification of Coverage.--Subsection (b)(1) of 
     section 5705 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking out ``or document'' in the matter above subparagraph 
     (A) and inserting in lieu thereof ``, document, or 
     testimony''.
       (b) Disclosure for Professional Use.--Such subsection is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) In an administrative or judicial proceeding commenced 
     by a criminal or civil law enforcement agency or 
     instrumentality referred to in subparagraph (C), but only 
     concerning the subject of such proceeding.
       ``(F) To a governmental board or agency or to a 
     professional health care society or organization, if such 
     record or document is needed by the board, agency, society, 
     or organization to issue a professional license or credential 
     to or to monitor the compliance with professional standards 
     of any health care provider who is or was an employee of the 
     Department.
       ``(G) To a hospital, medical center, or other institution 
     that provides health care services, if such record or 
     document is needed by the institution to assess the 
     professional qualifications of any health care provider who 
     is or was an employee of the Department and who has applied 
     for or been granted authority or employment to provide health 
     care services in or on behalf of such institution.
       ``(H) To an administrative or judicial proceeding commenced 
     by a present or former Department health care provider 
     concerning the termination, suspension or limitation of the 
     clinical privileges of such health care provider, or 
     concerning any adverse action involving such health care 
     provider, but only to the extent that such records or 
     documents relate to the clinical conduct or performance of 
     the individual who has commenced the action.''.
       (c) Removal of Identities.--Subsection (b)(2) of such 
     section is amended by striking out ``if disclosure'' and all 
     that follows through ``personal privacy'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``subparagraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) of this 
     subsection''.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON DISCLOSURE.

       Paragraph (3) of section 5705(b) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) A person or entity having possession of, or access 
     to, information, records, or documents, or testimony relating 
     thereto, that is subject to the provisions of this section 
     may not disclose such information, records, or documents, or 
     any testimony relating thereto, in any manner or for any 
     purpose except for a purpose as provided in this subsection. 
     No person or entity to whom a record or document has been 
     disclosed under this subsection shall make further disclosure 
     of such record or document except for a purpose provided in 
     this subsection.''.

     SEC. 4. ACCESS TO RECORDS.

       Subsection (b) of section 5705 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Medical quality assurance records and documents 
     described in subsection (a) which are subject to section 552a 
     of title 5 may not be disclosed in accordance with that 
     section except to the extent that such disclosure is also 
     authorized under this section.
       ``(8) Medical quality assurance records or documents 
     described in subsection (a) which are also subject to section 
     552a of title 5--
       ``(A) shall not be subject to the access provisions of such 
     section 552a to the extent that such access would reveal the 
     identities of participants in the quality assurance process 
     which generated the records or documents; and
       ``(B) are not subject to the amendment provisions of such 
     section 552a.
       ``(9) Medical quality assurance records and documents 
     described in subsection (a) may not be made available to any 
     person under section 552 of title 5.''.

     SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

       Subsection (d)(2) of section 5705 of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking out ``specified in'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``accomplished in accordance 
     with''.
                                  ____



                                Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

                                  Washington, DC, March, 15, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: There is transmitted herewith a draft 
     bill to amend the statute which provides for the 
     confidentiality of specified medical quality assurance 
     program records of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 
     This statute, section 5705 of title 38, United States Code, 
     was originally enacted in 1980 to ensure the continued 
     participation of VA health care practitioners in the peer 
     review process essential to any successful medical quality 
     assurance program at VA medical facilities. (This process is 
     often also called quality management.) Protection of the 
     discussions, deliberations and other peer review activities 
     of health care practitioners is widely accepted in the 
     medical community as necessary to obtain the full and frank 
     evaluation of health care practitioners by their peers. As 
     far as we can determine, almost every state has a similar 
     statute, and in 1986 Congress enacted a statute, 10 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1102, which is based on section 5705, to provide for the 
     confidentiality of Department of Defense Medical Quality 
     Assurance Peer Review Program records.
       Since the enactment of section 5705 in 1980, the nature of 
     quality assurance activities conducted by all types of health 
     care facilities, including VA medical centers, has evolved 
     and grown more sophisticated, as have the uses of data and 
     information generated by those activities. Many of these 
     changes have come as a result of the Joint Commission on 
     Health Care Organizations' (JCAHO) directives. The JCAHO 
     actions have been directed at VA medical facilities as well 
     as non-VA institutions, and are integral to continued JCAHO 
     accreditation of VA health care facilities.
       In other words, many factors compel the Department to seek 
     to amend section 5705 at this time. These factors include: 
     the continued need to ensure the confidentiality of peer 
     review activities and documents reflecting those 
     activities in order to obtain full and frank evaluations 
     of the medical care provided the Nation's veterans so that 
     VA may improve that care; the continuing evolution in what 
     constitutes quality assurance activities; the changing 
     uses to be made of that data; the directives of the JCAHO 
     which must be met concerning activities and uses of data 
     generated in those activities in order to ensure continued 
     accreditation of VA medical facilities by JCAHO; the 
     Department's experiences after approximately 12 years with 
     the current statute; discussions with DoD personnel 
     concerning implementation of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1102; and 
     discussions with the Department of Justice personnel 
     concerning issues relating to defending the 
     confidentiality of VA quality assurance records in 
     litigation.
       The purpose of these proposed amendments to section 5705 is 
     to ensure the viability of the quality assurance process 
     while continuing to provide for the confidentiality of the 
     records and activities essential to the success of that 
     process, and hence, to the improvement of medical care for VA 
     beneficiaries.
       Several of the amendments are derived from language in the 
     DoD statute. Section 5705 now plainly states that records 
     protected by the statute are privileged and confidential and 
     cannot be disclosed outside VA except as expressly authorized 
     by the statute. Despite this clear bar against disclosure, VA 
     repeatedly is involved in litigation in which parties seek 
     access to medical quality assurance records protected by 
     section 5705 or to the testimony of the individuals who 
     participated in the activity which created the records. (Such 
     litigation has been unsuccessful in the past, but the need to 
     continually relitigate the issue in burdensome.)
       The DoD statute, section 1102, goes into more detail than 
     section 5705, expressly barring release of records in 
     judicial or administrative proceedings and barring testimony 
     about the activities reflected in, or contents of, the 
     records. Incorporation of this more detailed explanatory 
     section 1102 language into section 5705 would make clear that 
     the general bar of section 5705 applies to the most commonly 
     occurring situations which are specifically addressed in 
     section 1102. Accordingly, the proposed legislation 
     incorporates the language of subsection 1102(b) as 
     subsection (a)(2) of section 5705.
       Similary, section 5705-protected records are protected from 
     disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 
     U.S.C. Sec. 552, as are records protected by section 1102. 
     However, section 1102 specifically bars release of medical 
     quality assurance records under FOIA. The proposed amendment 
     would incorporate this language from subsection 1102(f) into 
     subsection 5705(b)(9).
       Further, the adoption of language similar to the language 
     in subsection 1102(e) as part of subsection 5705(b)(3) would 
     ensure that prohibition against disclosure or redisclosure of 
     section 5705-protected records applies to any individual who 
     has access to the records.
       Section 1102(c)(1) authorizes the disclosure of medical 
     quality assurance records in certain situations in which the 
     VA currently may not release its similar section 5705-
     protected medical quality assurance records. These section 
     1102 disclosure authorities are more consistent with the uses 
     now made of quality assurance data by medical facilities 
     generally. For example, JCAHO now requires medical facilities 
     to use quality assurance information in deciding whether to 
     grant, renew, Limit or revoke the clinical privileges of 
     health care practitioners in those facilities. Similarly, a 
     protected quality assurance investigation may reveal that 
     disciplinary or other adverse personnel action is necessary 
     against a health care professional for his or her activities 
     or conduct in the matter investigated in the quality 
     assurance process. Use of this type of information for these 
     purposes necessarily requires disclosure of that information 
     in certain circumstances, including disclosures in 
     administrative and judicial proceedings.
       Currently, in both situations, VA must recreate the 
     information first created as part of a protected quality 
     assurance activity in order to be able to use it and release 
     it as required in the course of either making or defending a 
     privileging decision, and in the course of either making or 
     defending a disciplinary or other adverse personnel action, 
     particularly when defending VA's actions in court because 
     section 5705 currently bars disclosure of confidential and 
     privileged records in court. It is unnecessarily burdensome 
     for the VA to be required to recreate the information 
     contained in section 5705 records in a nonsection 5705 
     process and to maintain these duplicate records in order to 
     be able to use the data as JCAHO now requires, or as commonly 
     used elsewhere in the medical community.
       Section 5705 requires the deletion of personally 
     identifying information before disclosure of the medical 
     quality assurance records outside VA if the disclosure would 
     constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal 
     privacy of VA patients and employees as well as participants 
     in the quality assurance activity. Section 1102 simply 
     requires deletion of the identifying information. The 
     proposed amendment adopts the section 1102 redaction 
     procedure in those situations where it appears that the 
     recipient would have no need for the identifying data.
       Currently, the Department does not file or retrieve section 
     5705 medical quality assurance records by the name of any 
     individual. The rationale is that the disclosure authorities 
     of the two statutes are not identical; the Privacy Act 
     permits, and in some instances, section 5705 requires, 
     disclosure of records in situations not authorized by the 
     other. Thus, if section 5705 records were to be retrieved by 
     an individual identifier, disclosure of the record might 
     require VA to violate one of the two statutes. Yet, VA is 
     facing an increasing need to file these records by the name 
     or other individual identifier in order to be able to 
     effectively use them in the privileging process because JCAHO 
     requires health care facilities to use the data for that 
     purpose. The proposed amendment resolves this conflict 
     between the two statutes' disclosure provisions by providing 
     that section 5705 records retrieved by an individual's name 
     may be disclosed only when both statutes authorize the 
     disclosure.
       Further, the legislation addresses the related problem of 
     the individual health care provider's Privacy Act rights of 
     access to, and amendment of, individually identified and 
     retrieved section 5705 records about that individual by 
     treating the records as records are treated under subsection 
     (k) of the Privacy Act, particularly paragraphs (k) (2) and 
     (5). Specifically, the individual normally would have a right 
     to access to the records without information identifying 
     quality assurance review activity participants, particularly 
     identifying information concerning those health care 
     professionals who had reviewed the clinical actions of the 
     individual.
       Additionally, in these situations, the individual would not 
     be able to amend section 5705-protected records. This result 
     is also similar to case law concerning Privacy Act records 
     generally that where individuals have a comprehensive 
     remedical scheme, such as in the Civil Service Reform Act, 
     that scheme constitutes a jurisdictional bar to challenging 
     Federal employment decisions by means of the amendment 
     provision of the Privacy Act. See, e.g., Kleiman v. 
     Department of Energy, 956 F. 2d 335 (D.C. Cir. 1992); 
     Houlihan v. Office of Personnel Management, 909 F. 2d 383 
     (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). VA health care professionals 
     either are subject to the Civil Service Reform ACt or have a 
     similar remedial scheme in title 38.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program to the submission of this report and legislative 
     proposal to the Congress.
           Sincerely yours,

                                             Jesse Brown. 

                                 ______

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (by request):
  S. 2324. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide 
that employees appointed under chapters 73 and 74 of that title have 
protection against certain prohibited personnel practices; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


   protection against prohibited personnel practices for certain va 
                               employees

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2324, a bill to amend title 38, 
United States Code, to provide to employees appointed under that title, 
protection from prohibited personnel practices. The Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the 
Senate by letter dated June 21, 1993.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record with Secretary Brown's transmittal letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2324

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROTECTION AGAINST CERTAIN PROHIBITED PERSONNEL 
                   PRACTICES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 74 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 7427. Protection from prohibited personnel practices

       ``(a)(1) The provisions of law referred to in paragraph (2) 
     apply to any individual appointed as an employee of the 
     Veterans Health Administration under chapter 73 of this title 
     or under this chapter.
       ``(2) The provisions of law referred to in paragraph (1) 
     are sections 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1221, 1222, and 
     2302 of title 5
       ``(b) The authority of the Merit Systems Protection Board 
     and of the Office of Special Counsel to review any personnel 
     action under the authority provided for under a provision of 
     law referred to in subsection (a) shall apply only to the 
     extent specified in the provision of law.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 7426 the following new item:

``7427. Protection from prohibited personnel practices.''.
                                  ____

     Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: We are transmitting a draft bill, ``To 
     amend title 38, United States Code, to provide to employees 
     appointed under that title, protection from prohibited 
     personnel practices.'' We request that it be referred to the 
     appropriate committee for prompt consideration and enactment.
       This proposal would amend title 38 U.S.C. to provide to 
     title 38 employees (VA medical professionals such as 
     physicians, dentists and nurses) the same protections against 
     prohibited personnel practices, including protection against 
     reprisal for whistleblowing, that apply to other Federal 
     employees. Thus, the bill would establish that the 
     protections apply to title 38 employees; the independent 
     Office of Special Counsel's investigatory and enforcement 
     authorities apply to title 38 employees; title 38 employees 
     could seek Merit Systems Protection Board review of 
     whistleblowing claims; and the WPA's reduced burden of 
     proving whistleblowing claims applies to title 38 employees. 
     The proposal would emphasize that the Office of Special 
     Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board are limited to 
     reviewing title 38 employees claims solely on title 5 
     grounds.
       Congress originally enacted the protections against 
     prohibited personnel practices as part of the Civil Service 
     Reform Act. VA has always viewed these protections as 
     applying to title 38 under VA's separate and exclusive 
     personnel system for medical professionals. Congress 
     strengthened these protections when it enacted the 
     Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). The WPA authorized 
     Federal employees to seek review of whistleblower claims by 
     the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The MSPB, however, 
     ruled in Alvarez v. VA, 49 M.S.P.R. 682 (1991), that title 38 
     medical professionals could not seek MSPB review of their 
     whistleblowing claims because they were limited to the review 
     mechanisms of the title 38 personnel system.
       In strengthening whistleblower protections, the WPA changed 
     the burden of proof to make it easier for whistleblowers to 
     establish their claims. Moreover, even through title 38 
     whistleblower may raise their claims under the title 38 
     personnel system, the revised easier burden of proof under 
     the WPA would not apply. In this regard, the House Committee 
     on Government Operations found that protections for title 38 
     whistleblowers to be inadequate in the absence of WPA 
     protections, and recommended remedial legislation. Continuing 
     Deficiencies in the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
     Quality Assurance Program, H. Rep. No. 1062, 102d Cong., 2d 
     Sess. 20 (1991).
       This proposal would confirm that prohibited personnel 
     practices protections, including protection against 
     whistleblower reprisal, apply to title 38 employees to the 
     same extent as they apply to other Federal employees. The 
     proposal additionally would confirm that the expanded 
     protections of WPA apply to VA medical professionals, 
     including independent investigation by the Office of Special 
     Counsel and review by MSPB.
       There are no costs associated with this proposal.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program to the submission of this legislative proposal to the 
     Congress.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                      Jesse Brown.
                                  ____


                         Analysis of Draft Bill

       The bill would add a new section, 7427 to title 38, United 
     States Code, to provide to title 38 employees the same 
     protections against prohibited personnel practices, including 
     protection against reprisal for whistleblowing, that apply to 
     other Federal employees.
       Proposed section 7427(a) would confirm that title 5 
     provisions protecting Federal employees against prohibited 
     personnel practices apply to title 38 employees. In addition, 
     it would confirm that the Office of Special Counsel's 
     investigative, corrective action and disciplinary authorities 
     apply to title 38 employees. This subsection also would 
     provide title 38 employees with the right to seek review of 
     whistleblowing claims by the Merit Systems Protection Board.
       Proposed section 7427(b) would emphasize that the Office of 
     Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board review 
     of allegations of prohibited personnel practices involving 
     title 38 employees is limited to title 5 grounds.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. 
        Campbell):
  S. 2325. A bill to amend certain laws under the jurisdiction of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to reauthorize programs relating to 
substance abuse and homeless assistance for veterans, to authorize a 
demonstration program to provide assistance to homeless veterans, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                  programs to assist homeless veterans

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee 
of Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased to introduce, with the cosponsorship 
of Senators Akaka, Daschle and Campbell, a bill that would reauthorize 
several important programs to assist veterans who suffer from 
homelessness and substance abuse problems, and establish a 
demonstration project in which VA would form partnerships with 
community-based organizations to provide assistance to homeless 
veterans.
  Mr. President, studies reveal that between 30 and 40 percent of those 
who are homeless are veterans. More than half of all homeless veterans 
suffer from substance abuse problems, one-third from mental illnesses, 
and many from both disorders. This situation is tragic and, 
unfortunately, very difficult to address. Homeless veterans with 
substance abuse problems or mental illnesses are often the most 
difficult to reach and to rehabilitate. Short-term detoxification and 
shelter beds provide only the first steps in homeless veterans' 
recovery and reintegration into society.
  In some cases, the reasons veterans become homeless are closely 
linked to their military service--war-related trauma like post-
traumatic stress disorder, service-connected disabilities, economic 
hardship, missed opportunities from being in the service, and lack of 
job skills. Such a wide array of problems demands a wide array of 
services.
  Mr. President, in an attempt to address this problem, Congress and 
the Department of Veterans Affairs have developed several highly 
innovative and successful programs for homeless veterans which provide 
outreach and contracting services, domiciliary care, work therapy, job 
training, and grants to community-based organizations that serve 
homeless veterans. The Administration's recently published ``Federal 
Plan to Break the Cycle of Homelessness,'' cites VA on several 
occasions as a model homeless assistance provider. While commenting on 
the needs of the homeless generally, the Federal plan states:

       [a]ccommodating the diversity and range of assistance needs 
     among homeless persons will require the development of 
     comprehensive, yet flexible, community-based continuums of 
     care, much like those VA is working to develop through its 
     Comprehensive Homeless Centers.

  Mr. President, community-based organizations also provide an 
essential component in the array of services to homeless veterans. 
Organizations around the country provide food, shelter, clothing, 
education, training, job opportunities, and many other services. One of 
the most visible signs of communities reaching out to assist homeless 
veterans has been the increasing number of stand-downs. A stand-down is 
typically a 2- or 3-day event in which community volunteers give 
homeless veterans a safe haven from the streets and shelters, and 
provide them with a myriad of medical, economic, and personal 
assistance. There have been nearly 60 stand-downs held or planned for 
this year--nearly twice the number as in 1993.

  Mr. President, the bill that I introduce today would, among other 
things, reauthorize several innovative VA programs to help veterans who 
suffer from homelessness and substance abuse. It also would authorize a 
demonstration project that would authorize a cooperative partnership 
between VA and community-based organizations to assist homeless 
veterans.


                         summary of provisions

  Mr. President, the bill I am introducing contains a stand-alone 
provision and amendments to title 38, the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
Assistance Act, and various public laws that would:
  First, reauthorize until September 30, 1996, the Compensated Work 
Therapy/Transitional Residence Program for veterans who suffer from 
severe substance abuse problems and homelessness;
  Second, make permanent VA's authority to contract with non-VA halfway 
houses for rehabilitation services for veterans with substance abuse 
problems;
  Third, authorize appropriations, through fiscal year 1997, for the 
Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Project, a program administered by the 
Department of Labor to assist homeless veterans to receive job training 
and employment opportunities;
  Fourth, reauthorize until September 30, 1998, the Homeless 
Chronically Mentally Ill Program, which provides outreach and contract 
care in non-VA facilities for homeless veterans with severe mental 
illnesses, and codify the program in title 38;
  Fifth, require VA to submit an annual report on its activities to 
assist homeless veterans, including information on the number of 
homeless veterans served and the costs to the Department of its 
activities, and to report biannually on the effectiveness of these 
activities;
  Sixth, require that VA complete an assessment of the needs of 
homeless veterans, as required by Public Law 102-405, report its 
finding to the Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs by 
December 31, 1994, and update this report annually for 3 years;

  Seventh, establish up to five homeless veterans demonstration 
projects in various locations that would combine VA case management 
services and community-based organization housing and employment 
programs.
  Eighth, raise the limit on the number of comprehensive homeless 
centers that VA may establish from 4 to 12; and,
  Ninth, remove the requirement in the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive 
Service Programs Act of 1992 that funds for various initiatives in that 
law be specifically provided for in an appropriations law.


                               discussion

 reauthorization of demonstration program of compensated work therapy 
                  and therapeutic transitional housing

  Mr. President, section 1 of the bill would reauthorize for 2 years a 
demonstration program that provides veterans with compensated work 
therapy and therapeutic transitional housing [CWT/TR]. The current 
authority for this program expires at the end of this fiscal year.
  The CWT/TR program, enacted in 1991, authorizes VA to purchase and 
renovate 50 residences as therapeutic transitional houses for chronic 
substance abusers, many of whom are also homeless, jobless, and have 
mental illnesses. Veterans must pay rent from money earned by working 
from private businesses or Federal agencies which have contracts with 
VA to employ the veterans. Once the residence is fully renovated and 
operational, the rent collected from the veterans participating in the 
program generally has exceeded the operating costs of the residence.
  Mr. President, 36 therapeutic residences are fully operational, with 
the remaining 14 to be completed by the end of the year. While the 
long-term benefits of this demonstration program may be difficult to 
determine at this point, it appears to have had initial success. Well 
over half of participating veterans complete the program and have 
enjoyed substantially better sobriety, employment, and housing status 
than before entering the program. Also, the concept of VA case 
management services linked with therapeutic employment and training 
remains attractive and worthy of more study. The demonstration project 
that would be authorized by section 7 of this bill, and which I will 
discuss later, is based on the CWT/TR model.


PERMANENT AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION FOR ALCOHOL 
                OR DRUG DEPENDENCE OR ABUSE DISABILITIES

  Mr. President, my bill would make permanent VA's authority to 
contract with non-VA halfway houses for rehabilitation services for 
veterans with substance abuse problems. The programs' current authority 
expires on December 31, 1994.
  This contract program was first authorized in 1979 and has become one 
of VA's most important substance abuse treatment programs. It operates 
at 110 medical centers and treated 6,300 veterans in fiscal year 1993. 
The administration's fiscal year 1995 budget request assumes that 
Congress will reauthorize this program. The program would continue to 
be funded within VA's medical care budget. Granting VA the permanent 
authority to contract with non-VA halfway houses gives solidity and 
continuity to a program that has proved its worth over time and will 
remain an integral part of VA's treatment of veterans with substance 
abuse.


      REAUTHORIZATION OF HOMELESS VETERANS' REINTEGRATION PROJECTS

  Mr. President, section 3 would reauthorize the homeless veterans' 
reintegration projects [HVRP] through fiscal year 1997. Under the HVRP, 
established under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 
1987, the Department of Labor Veterans Employment and Training Service 
is authorized to provide grants on a competitive basis to community-
based organizations to provide employment training and placement to 
homeless veterans.
  This grant program has been appropriated only $5 million per year in 
recent years, and has assisted 32 community groups with programs to 
help homeless veterans reintegrate back into the labor force. Although 
small, HVRP offers a crucial element in the continuum of services that 
homeless veterans need.


AUTHORITY FOR COMMUNITY-BASED RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR HOMELESS CHRONICALLY 
                    MENTALLY ILL AND OTHER VETERANS

  Mr. President, section 4 of my bill would reauthorize for 4 years the 
Homeless Chronically Mentally Ill [HCMI] Program, and codify the 
program in title 38, United States Code. The HCMI Program, one of the 
two major VA homeless programs, authorizes VA outreach workers to 
contact homeless veterans in the community, assess and refer veterans 
to community services, and place eligible veterans in contracted 
community-based residential treatment facilities.
  Mr. President, the HCMI Program was enacted in 1987 as a pilot 
program with a budget of only $5 million. It has been reauthorized 
several times but remains a pilot program, despite the fact that it 
operates out of 57 medical centers and has a $29 million budget. 
Reauthorizing and codifying this program in chapter 17, title 38, would 
clarify its current authority, heighten its status, and demonstrate the 
persistence of homelessness. Similar to the contract program for 
veterans with chronic substance abuse programs, which I propose to make 
permanent in section 1, the HCMI program has proven its worth long ago 
and should be among the title 38 programs to assist homeless veterans.


 reports on activities of the department of veterans affairs to assist 
                           homeless veterans

  Mr. President, my bill would require VA to submit an annual report on 
its activities to assist homeless veterans, including information on 
the numbers of homeless veterans served and the costs to the Department 
of its activities, and to report biannually on the effectiveness of 
these activities.
  Mr. President, the Department is, to a large degree, already 
fulfilling the reporting requirements under this provision. The 
Northeast Program Evaluation Center, in West Haven, CT, conducts in-
depth analyses of many VA specialized programs, including programs for 
veterans who suffer from PTSD and severe mental illness, substance 
abuse, and homelessness.
  Section 5 of my bill would ensure that the Department continues to 
share these important studies with Congress to assist policymaking and 
oversight of VA programs for homeless veterans. An annual report that 
describes VA's previous year activities to assist homeless veterans and 
information on the number of veterans served and cost of homeless 
programs would be submitted to assist Congress with yearly funding 
decisions. Also, on a biannual basis, VA would be required to submit, 
in conjunction with the above information, an analysis of the 
effectiveness of its homeless programs.


   report on assessment and plans for response to needs of homeless 
                                veterans

  Mr. President, section 6 of my bill would require VA to complete an 
assessment of the needs of homeless veterans, as required by Public Law 
102-405, report its findings to the Senate and House Committees on 
Veterans' Affairs by December 31, 1994, and update this report annually 
for 3 years.
  Public Law 102-405 required the Secretary to assess programs 
developed by facilities of the Department which have been designed to 
assist homeless veterans. In carrying out this assessment, the 
Secretary is directed to require the director of each VA medical center 
and regional office to assess the needs of homeless veterans within the 
area served by the facility, including veterans' needs for health care, 
education and training, employment, shelter, counseling, and outreach 
services. Also, the directors are required, along with other local 
officials and homeless service providers, to develop a list of all 
public and private programs to assist homeless persons in the areas 
served by the VA facilities.

  Mr. President, Public Law 102-405 was enacted nearly 2 years ago. 
Although an interim report was submitted to the committee in June 1993, 
the Department has progressed slowly in fulfilling the requirements of 
the law. The Department pointed out at a February 23, 1994, hearing on 
homeless veterans that Congress did not place a submission deadline for 
the survey required in Public Law 102-405. Section 6 of this bill would 
do just that. The Secretary would be required to submit this report to 
the committee by December 31, 1994. At the hearing, I was pleased to 
learn that work had begun to complete this survey; therefore, I feel 
December 31, 1994, is a reasonable deadline.


 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND COMMUNITY-
      BASED ORGANIZATION PARTNERSHIPS TO ASSIST HOMELESS VETERANS

  Mr. President, section 7 of the bill would establish up to five 
homeless veterans demonstration projects in various locations that 
would combine VA case management services and community-based 
organization [CBO] housing and employment programs.
  We are constantly challenged to find new and better ideas to assist 
the variety of needs of the homeless, despite fewer and fewer resources 
to dedicate to these needs. There are many programs run by Federal, 
State, and local governments, community and church organizations, and 
private citizens, to assist the homeless. Unfortunately, these programs 
frequently compete with one another for funds and, as a result, do not 
work together or share good ideas.
  Mr. President, the demonstration project that I am proposing seeks to 
forge partnerships among homeless veterans service providers, 
capitalizing on the strengths of both VA and community organizations. 
VA would provide clinical staff and case managers from a local medical 
center, and the CBO's would provide housing and employment services to 
homeless veterans. These partnerships should be cost effective and 
provide the continuum of care that homeless veterans need.
  Specifically, the Secretary would be required to enter into 
agreements with up to five CBO's that encourage veterans to assume 
homelessness, provide transitional housing and employment training or 
placement assistance, collect rent from the emploment-related income of 
the veterans, and use the rent to offset program expenses. The 
Secretary would make available to the CBO clinicians from the local VA 
medical center to provide veterans with case management, substance 
abuse counseling, basic medical care, and referrals to other VA health 
and benefits programs.

  Mr. President, this program would be similar to VA's successful 
Compensated Work Therapy/Transitional Residence Program that I 
described earlier. The important difference is that, under this 
program, veterans would receive housing and employment services from 
community-based organizations, instead of VA.


 revisions to homeless veterans comprehensive service programs act of 
                                  1992

  Mr. President, section 8 of my bill would make some revisions to the 
Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Service Programs Act of 1992, Public 
Law 102-590.
  First, this provision would raise the limit on the number of 
comprehensive homeless centers [CHC] that VA may establish from 4 to 
12. A CHC is a system of VA homeless veteran programs located in close 
proximity to each other which provide a comprehensive continuum of care 
for veterans. The CHC may include programs that provide outreach and 
contracting, work therapy, health care, domiciliary care, a day-time 
drop-in center, and other services.
  Mr. President, Public Law 102-590 limited the number of CHCs that 
could be established to four because the cost estimate for that act 
assumed all of the components of the CHC would have to be established 
from scratch. However, VA established the CHCs in areas that had a 
number of the components already in place, adding only the components 
necessary to complete the system of services needed. VA has established 
the four CHCs authorized by law, and indicated that it would like to 
expand the number of CHC's. This provision would raise the limit on the 
number of CHCs with the understanding that VA would establish 
additional CHCs without additional resources specifically targeted for 
such expansion.
  Second, this provision would remove the requirement in Public Law 
102-590 that funds for various initiatives in that law be specifically 
provided for in an appropriations law. Removal of this requirement is 
consistent with the 1994 appropriations conference agreement.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the men and 
women who served in the armed services and kept our country safe and 
secure. What we owe in return for their sacrifices, at the minimum, is 
safety and security from homelessness. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2325

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM OF 
                   COMPENSATED WORK THERAPY AND THERAPEUTIC 
                   TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.

       Section 7(a) of Public Law 102-54 (38 U.S.C. 1718 note) is 
     amended by striking out ``fiscal years 1991 through 1994'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``fiscal years 1991 through 
     1996''.

     SEC. 2. PERMANENT AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TREATMENT AND 
                   REHABILITATION FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG DEPENDENCE 
                   OR ABUSE DISABILITIES.

       Section 1720A of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking out subsection (e).

     SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF HOMELESS VETERANS' REINTEGRATION 
                   PROJECTS.

       Section 738(e)(1) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11448(e)(1)) is amended by striking 
     out subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(A) $14,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.
       ``(B) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       ``(C) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY FOR COMMUNITY-BASED RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR 
                   HOMELESS CHRONICALLY MENTALLY ILL AND OTHER 
                   VETERANS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 1720E. Community-based residential care for homeless 
       chronically mentally ill and other veterans

       ``(a)(1) The Secretary may provide care and treatment and 
     rehabilitative services (directly or by contract) in halfway 
     houses, therapeutic communities, psychiatric residential 
     treatment centers, and other community-based treatment 
     facilities to homeless veterans suffering from chronic mental 
     illness disabilities who are eligible for care under section 
     1710(a)(1) of this title.
       ``(2) In providing care and treatment and rehabilitative 
     services under paragraph (1), the Secretary may also provide 
     such care and treatment and rehabilitative services--
       ``(A) to veterans being furnished hospital or nursing home 
     care by the Secretary for a chronic mental illness 
     disability; and
       ``(B) to veterans with service-connected chronic mental 
     illness disabilities.
       ``(b) Before furnishing care and treatment and 
     rehabilitative services by contract under subsection (a) to a 
     veteran through a facility described in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall approve (in accordance with criteria which 
     the Secretary shall prescribe) the quality and effectiveness 
     of the program operated by such facility for the purpose for 
     which such veteran is to be furnished such care and services.
       ``(c)(1) The Secretary may provide in-kind assistance 
     (through the services of Department employees and the sharing 
     of other Department resources) to a facility described in 
     subsection (a) under this section. The Secretary shall 
     provide such assistance to a facility under a contract 
     between the Secretary and the facility.
       ``(2) The Secretary may provide assistance under paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) only for use solely in the furnishing of appropriate 
     care and services under this section; and
       ``(B) only if, under such contract, the Secretary receives 
     reimbursement for the full cost of such assistance, including 
     the cost of services and supplies and normal depreciation and 
     amortization of equipment.
       ``(3) Reimbursement under paragraph (2)(B) may be made by 
     reduction in the charges to the United States or by payment 
     to the United States.
       ``(4) Any funds received through reimbursement under 
     paragraph (3) shall be credited to funds allotted to the 
     Department facility that provided the assistance.
       ``(d) The Secretary may not provide care and treatment and 
     rehabilitative services under this section after September 
     30, 1998.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 1720D the following new item:

``1720E. Community-based residential care for homeless mentally ill and 
              other veterans.''.
       (c) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--Section 115 of the 
     Veterans' Benefits and Services Act of 1988 (38 U.S.C. 1712 
     note) is repealed.

     SEC. 5. REPORTS ON ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS TO ASSIST HOMELESS VETERANS.

       (a) Annual Report.--(1) Not later than February 1 of each 
     year, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to the 
     Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives a report on the activities of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs during the year preceding the 
     report under programs of the Department for the provision of 
     assistance to homeless veterans.
       (2) The report shall--
       (A) set forth the number of homeless veterans provided 
     assistance under such programs;
       (B) describe the cost to the Department of providing such 
     assistance under such programs; and
       (C) provide any other information on such programs and on 
     the provision of such assistance that the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (b) Bi-Annual Requirement.--The Secretary shall include in 
     the report submitted under subsection (a)(1) in 1995, and 
     every 2 years thereafter, an evaluation of the effectiveness 
     of the programs of the Department in providing assistance to 
     homeless veterans.

     SEC. 6. REPORT ON ASSESSMENT AND PLANS FOR RESPONSE TO NEEDS 
                   OF HOMELESS VETERANS.

       (a) Update on Assessment.--Subsection (b) of section 107 of 
     the Veterans' Medical Programs Amendments of 1992 (Public Law 
     102-405; 106 Stat. 1977; 38 U.S.C. 527 note) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) The Secretary shall require that the directors 
     referred to in paragraph (1) update the assessment required 
     under that paragraph in each of 1995, 1996, and 1997.''.
       (b) Reports on Assessments and Plan.--Subsection (i) of 
     such section 107 (106 Stat. 1978) is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``Report.--'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``Reports.--(1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Not later than December 31, 1994, the Secretary shall 
     submit to such committees a report that--
       ``(A) describes the results of the assessment carried out 
     under subsection (b);
       ``(B) sets forth the lists developed under paragraph (1) of 
     subsection (c); and
       ``(C) describes the progress, if any, made by the directors 
     of the medical centers and the directors of the benefits 
     offices referred to in such subsection (c) in developing the 
     plan referred to in paragraph (2) of such subsection (c).
       ``(3) Not later than December 31 of each of 1995, 1996, and 
     1997, the Secretary shall submit to such committees a report 
     that describes the update to the assessment that is carried 
     out under subsection (b)(6) in the year preceding the 
     report.''.

     SEC. 7. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS AND COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION 
                   PARTNERSHIPS TO ASSIST HOMELESS VETERANS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     carry out a demonstration program under which the Secretary 
     shall enter into partnerships with community-based homeless 
     service organizations described in subsection (b) in order to 
     provide services and assistance to homeless veterans in 
     conjunction with such organizations. The Secretary shall 
     carry out the program in accordance with this section.
       (b) Community-Based Organizations.--The organizations with 
     which the Secretary enters into partnerships under subsection 
     (a) shall be organizations that--
       (1) encourage the assumption of personal responsibility by 
     homeless veterans who receive services and assistance from 
     the organization;
       (2) provide transitional housing to such veterans;
       (3) provide employment training or employment placement 
     assistance to such veterans;
       (4) may collect from such veterans rent derived from 
     employment-related income of such veterans; and
       (5) in the case of organizations that collect rent from 
     such veterans, utilize rent amounts collected to cover the 
     expenses of the organizations in providing services and 
     assistance to such veterans.
       (c) Provision of Services and Assistance.--(1) The 
     Secretary shall carry out the demonstration program 
     authorized under subsection (a) at not more than five 
     locations designated for that purpose by the Secretary. The 
     Secretary shall designate such locations in various 
     geographic areas.
       (2) With respect to each location designated under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall enter into an agreement 
     with a community-based service organization referred to in 
     subsection (b) in order to provide services and assistance to 
     homeless veterans.
       (3) The Secretary shall ensure under an agreement entered 
     into under paragraph (1) that appropriate personnel of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs provide individual and group 
     counseling, substance abuse counseling, employment 
     counseling, basic medical care, and referrals to other 
     Department health care and benefits programs to homeless 
     veterans at the location covered by the agreement.
       (d) Review of Program.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with an appropriate non-Federal entity under which 
     agreement the entity shall carry out a study of program 
     carried out under this section. The Secretary shall ensure 
     that, in carrying out the study, the entity shall--
       (1) determine whether assistance and services are provided 
     to homeless veterans under the program in a cost-effective 
     manner;
       (2) compare the assistance and services available under the 
     program with the assistance and services provided to homeless 
     individuals under other programs that are similar to the 
     program; and
       (3) make any recommendations that the entity considers 
     appropriate for the improvement and expansion of the program 
     or any agreement entered into under subsection (c).
       (e) Report.--Not later than September 30, 1996, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on 
     the results of the study carried out under subsection (d).

     SEC. 8. REVISIONS TO HOMELESS VETERANS COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE 
                   PROGRAMS ACT OF 1992.

       (a) Increase in Number of Demonstration Programs.--Section 
     2(b) of the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Service Programs 
     Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. 7721 note) is amended in the first 
     sentence by striking out ``four'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``12''.
       (b) Removal of Funding Limitation.--Section 12 of such Act 
     (38 U.S.C. 7721 note) is amended by striking out the second 
     sentence.

                          ____________________