[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 108 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
                     VETERANS' BENEFITS ACT OF 1994

  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4088) to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide a 
cost-of-living adjustment in the rates of disability compensation for 
veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of 
dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors of such veterans, 
as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES TO TITLE 38, UNITED STATES 
                   CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' 
     Benefits Act of 1994''.
       (b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
     whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of title 38, United States Code.
    TITLE I--COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT IN RATES OF COMPENSATION AND 
                 DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION

     SEC. 101. DISABILITY COMPENSATION.

       Section 1114 is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``$87'' in subsection (a) and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``$89'';
       (2) by striking out ``$166'' in subsection (b) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$170'';
       (3) by striking out ``$253'' in subsection (c) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$260'';
       (4) by striking out ``$361'' in subsection (d) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$371'';
       (5) by striking out ``$515'' in subsection (e) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$530'';
       (6) by striking out ``$648'' in subsection (f) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$667'';
       (7) by striking out ``$819'' in subsection (g) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$843'';
       (8) by striking out ``$948'' in subsection (h) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$976'';
       (9) by striking out ``$1,067'' in subsection (i) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$1,099'';
       (10) by striking out ``$1,774'' in subsection (j) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$1,827'';
       (11) by striking out ``$2,207'' and ``$3,093'' in 
     subsection (k) and inserting in lieu thereof ``$2,273'' and 
     ``$3,187'', respectively;
       (12) by striking out ``$2,207'' in subsection (l) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$2,273'';
       (13) by striking out ``$2,432'' in subsection (m) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$2,504'';
       (14) by striking out ``$2,768'' in subsection (n) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$2,851'';
       (15) by striking out ``$3,093'' each place it appears in 
     subsections (o) and (p) and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``$3,185'';
       (16) by striking out ``$1,328'' and ``$1,978'' in 
     subsection (r) and inserting in lieu thereof ``$1,367'' and 
     ``$2,037'', respectively; and
       (17) by striking out ``$1,985'' in subsection (s) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$2,044''.

     SEC. 102. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR DEPENDENTS.

       Section 1115(1) is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``$105'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$108'';
       (2) by striking out ``$178'' and ``$55'' in subparagraph 
     (B) and inserting in lieu thereof ``$183'' and ``$56'', 
     respectively;
       (3) by striking out ``$72'' and ``$55'' in subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``$74'' and ``$56'', 
     respectively;
       (4) by striking out ``$84'' in subparagraph (D) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$86'';
       (5) by striking out ``$195'' in subparagraph (E) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$200''; and
       (6) by striking out ``$164'' in subparagraph (F) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$168''.

     SEC. 103. CLOTHING ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN DISABLED VETERANS.

       Section 1162 is amended by striking out ``$478'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$492''.

     SEC. 104. DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION FOR SURVIVING 
                   SPOUSES.

       Section 1311 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking out ``$769'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$792'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking out ``$169'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$174'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(3), by striking out the table therein 
     and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

       

                            Monthly                              Monthly
``Pay grade                    rate  Pay grade                      rate
    E-7................        $817  O-3....................        $923
    E-8................         863  O-4....................         976
    E-9................      \1\901  O-5....................       1,075
    W-1................         836  O-6....................       1,212
    W-2................         869  O-7....................       1,309
    W-3................         895  O-8....................       1,433
    W-4................         947  O-9....................       1,536
    O-1................         836  O-10...................    \2\1,685
    O-2................         863                                     
                                                                        
``\1\If the veteran served as sergeant major of the Army, senior        
  enlisted advisor of the Navy, chief master sergeant of the Air Force, 
  sergeant major of the Marine Corps, or master chief petty officer of  
  the Coast Guard, at the applicable time designated by section 402 of  
  this title, the surviving spouse's rate shall be $971.                
``\2\If the veteran served as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint    
  Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval           
  Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine 
  Corps, or Commandant of the Coast Guard, at the applicable time       
  designated by section 402 of this title, the surviving spouse's rate  
  shall be $1,805.'';                                                   
                                                                        

       (4) in subsection (c), by striking out ``$195'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$200''; and
       (5) in subsection (d), by striking out ``$95'' in 
     subsection (c) and inserting in lieu thereof ``$97''.

     SEC. 105. DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION FOR CHILDREN.

       (a) DIC for Orphan Children.--Section 1313(a) is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``$327'' in paragraph (1) and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``$336'';
       (2) by striking out ``$471'' in paragraph (2) and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``$485'';
       (3) by striking out ``$610'' in paragraph (3) and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``$628''; and
       (4) by striking out ``$610'' and ``$120'' in paragraph (4) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``$628'' and ``$123'', 
     respectively.
       (b) Supplemental DIC for Disabled Adult Children.--Section 
     1314 is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``$195'' in subsection (a) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$200'';
       (2) by striking out ``$327'' in subsection (b) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$336''; and
       (3) by striking out ``$166'' in subsection (c) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$170''.

     SEC. 106. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this title shall take effect on 
     December 1, 1994.
        TITLE II--DISABILITIES RESULTING FROM HERBICIDE EXPOSURE

     SEC. 201. CODIFICATION OF PRESUMPTIONS ESTABLISHED 
                   ADMINISTRATIVELY.

       Section 1116(a)(2) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraphs:
       ``(D) Hodgkin's disease becoming manifest to a degree of 
     disability of 10 percent or more.
       ``(E) Porphyria cutanea tarda becoming manifest to a degree 
     of disability of 10 percent or more within a year after the 
     last date on which the veteran performed active military, 
     naval, or air service in the Republic of Vietnam during the 
     Vietnam era.
       ``(F) Respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, 
     larynx, or trachea) becoming manifest to a degree of 10 
     percent or more within 30 years after the last date on which 
     the veteran performed active military, naval, or air service 
     in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era.
       ``(G) Multiple myeloma becoming manifest to a degree of 
     disability of 10 percent or more.''.
          TITLE III--BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. 301. APPOINTMENT, PAY COMPARABILITY, AND PERFORMANCE 
                   REVIEWS FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF VETERANS' 
                   APPEALS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 71 is amended by inserting 
     after section 7101 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 7101A. Members of Board: appointment; pay; performance 
       review

       ``(a) The members of the Board of Veterans' Appeals other 
     than the Chairman (and including the Vice Chairman) shall be 
     appointed by the Secretary, with the approval of the 
     President, based upon recommendations of the Chairman.
       ``(b) Members of the Board (other than the Chairman and any 
     member of the Board who is a member of the Senior Executive 
     Service) shall, in accordance with regulations prescribed by 
     the Secretary, be paid basic pay at rates equivalent to the 
     rates payable under section 5372 of title 5.
       ``(c)(1) Not less than one year after the job performance 
     standards under subsection (f) are initially established, and 
     not less often than once every three years thereafter, the 
     Chairman shall determine, with respect to each member of the 
     Board (other than a member who is a member of the Senior 
     Executive Service), whether that member's job performance as 
     a member of the Board meets the performance standards for a 
     member of the Board established under subsection (f). Each 
     such determination shall be in writing.
       ``(2) If the determination of the Chairman in any case is 
     that the member's job performance as a member of the Board 
     meets the performance standards for a member of the Board 
     established under subsection (f), the member's appointment as 
     a member of the Board shall be recertified.
       ``(3) If the determination of the Chairman in any case is 
     that the member's job performance does not meet the 
     performance standards for a member of the Board established 
     under subsection (f), the Chairman shall, based upon the 
     individual circumstances, either--
       ``(A) grant the member a conditional recertification; or
       ``(B) recommend to the Secretary that the member be 
     noncertified.
       ``(4) In the case of a member of the Board who is granted a 
     conditional recertification under paragraph (3) or (5)(C), 
     the Chairman shall review the member's job performance record 
     and make a further determination under paragraph (1) 
     concerning that member not later than one year after the date 
     of the conditional recertification. If the determination of 
     the Chairman at that time is that the member's job 
     performance as a member of the Board still does not meet the 
     performance standards for a member of the Board established 
     under subsection (f), the Chairman shall recommend to the 
     Secretary that the member be noncertified.
       ``(5)(A) In a case in which the Chairman recommends to the 
     Secretary under paragraph (3) or (4) that a member be 
     noncertified, the Secretary shall establish a panel to review 
     that recommendation. The panel shall be established from 
     among employees of the Department other than members of the 
     Board or of the Board's staff and may include Federal 
     employees from outside the Department with appropriate 
     expertise.
       ``(B) The panel shall review the matter and recommend to 
     the Secretary whether the Board member should be noncertified 
     or should be granted a conditional recertification.
       ``(C) The Secretary, after considering the recommendation 
     of the panel, may either--
       ``(i) grant the member a conditional recertification; or
       ``(ii) determine that the member should be noncertified.
       ``(d)(1) If the Secretary, based upon the recommendation of 
     the Chairman and after considering the recommendation of the 
     panel under subsection (c)(5), determines that a member of 
     the Board should be noncertified, that member's appointment 
     as a member of the Board shall be terminated and that member 
     shall be removed from the Board.
       ``(2) An individual so removed from the Board shall have 
     the right to be employed by the Board in an attorney-advisor 
     position.
       ``(e)(1) A member of the Board (other than the Chairman or 
     a member of the Senior Executive Service) may be removed as a 
     member of the Board by reason of job performance only as 
     provided in subsections (c) and (d). Such a member may be 
     removed by the Secretary, upon the recommendation of the 
     Chairman, for any other reason as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) In the case of a removal of a member under this 
     section for a reason other than job performance that would be 
     covered by section 7521 of title 5 in the case of an 
     administrative law judge, the removal of the member of the 
     Board shall be carried out subject to the same requirements 
     as apply to removal of an administrative law judge under that 
     section. Section 554(a)(2) of title 5 shall not apply to a 
     removal action under this subsection. In such a removal 
     action, a member shall have the rights set out in section 
     7513(b) of that title.
       ``(f) The Chairman, subject to the approval of the 
     Secretary, shall establish standards for the performance of 
     the job of a member of the Board (other than a member of the 
     Senior Executive Service). Those standards shall establish 
     objective and fair criteria for evaluation of the job 
     performance of a member of the Board.
       ``(g) The Secretary shall prescribe procedures for the 
     administration of this section, including deadlines and time 
     schedules for different actions under this section.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     7101 the following new item:

``7101A. Members of Board: appointment; pay; performance review.''.

       (b) Save Pay Provision.--The rate of basic pay payable to 
     an individual who is a member of the Board of Veterans' 
     Appeals on the date of the enactment of this Act may not be 
     reduced by reason of the amendments made by this section to a 
     rate below the rate payable to such individual on the day 
     before such date.
       (c) Effective Date.--Section 7101A(b) of title 38, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on 
     the first day of the first pay period beginning after 
     December 31, 1994.

     SEC. 302. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 7101(b) is amended--
       (1) by striking out paragraph (2);
       (2) by designating as paragraph (2) the text in paragraph 
     (1) beginning ``The Chairman may be removed''; and
       (3) by striking out ``Members (including the Chairman)'' in 
     paragraph (3) and inserting in lieu thereof ``The Chairman''.

     SEC. 303. DEADLINE FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PERFORMANCE 
                   EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR BOARD MEMBERS.

       (a) Deadline.--The job performance standards required to be 
     established by section 7101A(d) of title 38, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), shall be established not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) Submission to Congressional Committee.--Not later than 
     the date on which the standards referred to in subsection (a) 
     take effect, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit 
     to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and 
     House of Representatives a report containing the Secretary's 
     proposal for the establishment of those standards.
                  TITLE IV--ADJUDICATION IMPROVEMENTS

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Veterans' Adjudication 
     Improvements Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 402. REPORT ON FEASIBILITY OF REORGANIZATION OF 
                   ADJUDICATION DIVISIONS IN VBA REGIONAL OFFICES.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to 
     the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House 
     of Representatives a report addressing the feasibility and 
     impact of a reorganization of the adjudication divisions 
     located within the regional offices of the Veterans Benefits 
     Administration to a number of such divisions that would 
     result in improved efficiency in the processing of claims 
     filed by veterans, their survivors, or other eligible 
     persons, for benefits administered by the Secretary.

     SEC. 403. MASTER VETERAN RECORD.

       (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     implement a recordkeeping system whereby each veteran and 
     other person eligible for benefits under laws administered by 
     the Secretary shall be identified by a single identification 
     number and through which information relating to that person, 
     including that person's current eligibility or entitlement 
     status with respect to each benefit or service administered 
     by the Secretary, shall be available through electronic means 
     to employees of the Department located in each regional 
     office of the Veterans Benefits Administration or medical 
     center of the Veterans Health Administration.
       (b) Deadline for Implementation.--The recordkeeping system 
     required by subsection (a) shall be implemented not later 
     than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act

     SEC. 404. REPORT ON PILOT PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives a report enumerating and 
     describing each pilot program and major initiative being 
     tested in the regional offices of the Veterans Benefits 
     Administration that affect the adjudication of claims for 
     benefits administered by the Secretary.
       (b) Contents.--The report shall include the Secretary's 
     recommendations regarding the need, if any, for legislation 
     to implement any of such pilot programs the Secretary may 
     recommend. If the Secretary indicates that legislation is not 
     required to implement one or more of such programs, the 
     Secretary shall advise the Committees as to whether any such 
     pilot program will be implemented and provide a timetable for 
     such implementation.

     SEC. 405. ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTATION FOR CLAIMS 
                   PURPOSES.

       (a) Statements of Claimant To Be Accepted as Proof of 
     Relationships.--Chapter 51 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``Sec. 5124. Acceptance of claimant's statement as proof of 
       relationship

       ``(a) For purposes of benefits under laws administered by 
     the Secretary, the Secretary shall accept the written 
     statement of a claimant as proof of the existence of any 
     relationship specified in subsection (b) for the purpose of 
     acting on such individual's claim for benefits.
       ``(b) Subsection (a) applies to proof of the existence of 
     any of the following relationships between a claimant and 
     another person:
       ``(1) Marriage.
       ``(2) Dissolution of a marriage.
       ``(3) Birth of a child.
       ``(4) Death of any family member.
       ``(c) The Secretary may require the submission of 
     documentation in support of the claimant's statement--
       ``(1) if the claimant does not reside within a State; or
       ``(2) if the statement on its face raises a question as to 
     its validity.''.
       (b) Reports of Examinations by Private Physicians.--Such 
     chapter, as amended by subsection (a), is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 5125. Acceptance of reports of private physician 
       examinations

       ``For purposes of establishing a claim for benefits under 
     chapter 11 or 15 of this title, a report of a medical 
     examination administered by a private physician that is 
     provided by a claimant in support of a claim for benefits 
     under that chapter shall be accepted without a requirement 
     for confirmation by an examination by a physician employed by 
     the Veterans Health Administration if the report is 
     sufficiently complete to be adequate for disability rating 
     purposes.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new items:

``5124. Acceptance of claimant's statement as proof of relationship.
``5125. Acceptance of reports of private physician examinations.''.

     SEC. 406. EXPEDITED TREATMENT OF REMANDED CLAIMS.

       The Secretary shall take such actions as may be necessary 
     to provide for the expeditious treatment, by the Board of 
     Veterans' Appeals and by the regional offices of the Veterans 
     Benefits Administration, of any claim that has been remanded 
     by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States 
     Court of Veterans Appeals for additional development or other 
     appropriate action.

     SEC. 407. SCREENING OF APPEALS.

       Section 7107 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking out ``Each case'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as provided in subsection 
     (f), each case''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Nothing in this section shall preclude the screening 
     of cases for purposes of--
       ``(1) determining the adequacy of the record for decisional 
     purposes; or
       ``(2) the development, or attempted development, of a 
     record found to be inadequate for decisional purposes.''.

     SEC. 408. REVISION OF DECISIONS BASED ON CLEAR AND 
                   UNMISTAKABLE ERROR.

       (a) Original Decisions.--(1) Chapter 51 is amended by 
     inserting after section 5109 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 5109A. Revision of decisions on grounds of clear and 
       unmistakable error

       ``(a) A decision by the Secretary under this chapter is 
     subject to revision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable 
     error. If evidence establishes the error, the prior decision 
     shall be reversed or revised.
       ``(b) For the purposes of authorizing benefits, a rating or 
     other adjudicative decision that constitutes a reversal or 
     revision of a prior decision on the grounds of clear and 
     unmistakable error has the same effect as if the decision had 
     been made on the date of the prior decision.
       ``(c) Review to determine whether clear and unmistakable 
     error exists in a case may be instituted by the Secretary on 
     the Secretary's own motion or upon request of the claimant.
       ``(d) A request for revision of a decision of the Secretary 
     based on clear and unmistakable error may be made at any time 
     after that decision is made.
       ``(e) Such a request shall be submitted to the Secretary 
     and shall be decided in the same manner as any other 
     claim.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     5109 the following new item:

``5109A. Revision of decisions on grounds of clear and unmistakable 
              error.''.

       (b) BVA Decisions.--(1) Chapter 71 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 7111. Revision of decisions on grounds of clear and 
       unmistakable error

       ``(a) A decision by the Board is subject to revision on the 
     grounds of clear and unmistakable error. If evidence 
     establishes the error, the prior decision shall be reversed 
     or revised.
       ``(b) For the purposes of authorizing benefits, a rating or 
     other adjudicative decision of the Board that constitutes a 
     reversal or revision of a prior decision of the Board on the 
     grounds of clear and unmistakable error has the same effect 
     as if the decision had been made on the date of the prior 
     decision.
       ``(c) Review to determine whether clear and unmistakable 
     error exists in a case may be instituted by the Board on the 
     Board's own motion or upon request of the claimant.
       ``(d) A request for revision of a decision of the Board 
     based on clear and unmistakable error may be made at any time 
     after that decision is made.
       ``(e) Such a request shall be submitted directly to the 
     Board and shall be decided by the Board on the merits, 
     without referral to any adjudicative or hearing official 
     acting on behalf of the Secretary.
       ``(f) A claim filed with the Secretary that requests 
     reversal or revision of a previous Board decision due to 
     clear and unmistakable error shall be considered to be a 
     request to the Board under this section, and the Secretary 
     shall promptly transmit any such request to the Board for its 
     consideration under this section.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``7111. Revision of decisions on grounds of clear and unmistakable 
              error.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--(1) Sections 5109A and 7111 of title 
     38, United States Code, as added by this section, apply to 
     any determination made before, on, or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Notwithstanding section 402 of the Veterans Judicial 
     Review Act (38 U.S.C. 7251 note), chapter 72 of title 38, 
     United States Code, shall apply with respect to any decision 
     of the Board of Veterans' Appeals on a claim alleging that a 
     previous determination of the Board was the product of clear 
     and unmistakable error if that claim is filed after, or was 
     pending before the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Court 
     of Veterans Appeals, the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
     Circuit, or the Supreme Court on, the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. RESTATEMENT OF INTENT OF CONGRESS CONCERNING 
                   COVERAGE OF RADIATION-EXPOSED VETERANS 
                   COMPENSATION ACT OF 1988.

       (a) Restatement of Absence of Statutory Limitation to 
     United States Tests.--(1) Clause (i) of section 1112(c)(3)(B) 
     is amended by inserting ``(without regard to whether the 
     nation conducting the test was the United States or another 
     nation)'' after ``nuclear device''.
       (2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect 
     as of May 1, 1988.
       (b) Proof of Service Connection of Disabilities Relating to 
     Exposure to Ionizing Radiation.--(1) Section 1113(b) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking out ``title or'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``title,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, or section 5 of Public Law 98-542 (38 
     U.S.C. 1154 note)'' after ``of this section''.
       (2) The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall apply with 
     respect to applications for veterans benefits that are 
     submitted to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 502. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO MAINTAIN REGIONAL OFFICE 
                   IN THE PHILIPPINES.

       Section 315(b) is amended by striking out ``December 31, 
     1994'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 31, 1999''.

     SEC. 503. RENOUNCEMENT OF BENEFIT RIGHTS.

       Section 5306 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), if a new application 
     for pension under chapter 15 of this title or for dependency 
     and indemnity compensation for parents under section 1315 of 
     this title is filed within one year after renouncement of 
     that benefit, such application shall not be treated as an 
     original application and benefits will be payable as if the 
     renouncement had not occurred.''.

     SEC. 504. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF COMPENSATION 
                   UPON DEATH OF CERTAIN VETERANS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5112 is amended by adding the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) In the case of a veteran who, at time of death, was 
     in receipt of compensation for a disability rated as totally 
     disabling with an additional amount being paid for a spouse, 
     if the Secretary determines that the surviving spouse of such 
     veteran is not eligible for dependency and indemnity 
     compensation, the effective date of the discontinuance of 
     such compensation shall be the last day of the month in which 
     such death occurred.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to deaths occurring after September 
     30, 1994.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  H.R. 4088, as amended, would provide a 3-percent cost-of-living 
adjustment in the rates of disability compensation for veterans with 
service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and 
indemnity compensation for survivors of such veterans.
  In addition, the bill would make certain changes in the claims and 
appeals processes at the Board of Veterans' Appeals and the VA regional 
offices.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Slattery], and I would say again that I 
realize this might be the last bill he will handle in this House, and I 
thank him again for his great service.
  Mr. SLATTERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4088 affects a wide spectrum of benefits and issues 
concerning the provision of benefits to veterans or their survivors.
  First, it would provide for a 3.0 percent cost-of-living adjustment 
in the rates of compensation and DIC payable to service disabled 
veterans or to their surviving spouses or dependents, effective on 
December 1, 1994.
  Second, it would codify the administrative action taken by Secretary 
Brown to add four additional disabilities to the statutory list of 
disabilities for which a presumption of service connection is granted 
to Vietnam era veterans who were exposed to herbicides while serving in 
Vietnam.
  Third, it would provide that members of the VA Board of Veterans' 
Appeals be compensated at basic rates of pay equivalent to 
administrative law judges. This provision recognizes that the work 
performed by Board members is very similar to the work performed by 
ALJ's. It also recognizes the greater responsibility we have given 
individual Board members in making decisions on veterans' appeals. This 
provision is intended to insure that members of the Board not feel 
compelled to pursue ALJ positions, but rather to remain at the Board, 
where their expertise is badly needed.
  Fourth, the bill, as amended, contains several provisions that would 
make several improvements in the adjudication process, including 
activities at both the the local, regional-office level and at the 
Board of Veterans' Appeals. Many of these provisions were suggested to 
us by the veterans organizations and I am very confident of their 
support. We have labored long and hard to try to develop changes in the 
way VA conducts its business. It has not been an easy or quick process 
and much more work remains to be done. I do not pretend to suggest that 
these changes represent a panacea but, I do feel that they represent a 
step in the right direction for veterans.
  Finally, the bill contains miscellaneous improvements in other areas 
that will benefit veterans and their survivors.
  I again want to express my thanks to the gentleman from Florida [Mike 
Bilirakis]. It has been a real pleasure to work with him these past 2 
years. And, once again, I want to thank Chairman Montgomery and Bob 
Stump for their strong leadership and support of this very important 
measure which we have all worked so hard to enact.
  Mr. Speaker, I also wish to recognize the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Lewis] and thank him for his support of one of the very important 
provisions contained in this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues, there follows an 
excerpt from the committee report on H.R. 4088, as amended, which 
contains a complete discussion of the reported bill:

                    Discussion of the Reported Bill


    TITLE I--COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT IN RATES OF COMPENSATION AND 
                 DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION

       Title I of H.R. 4088, as reported, (sections 101 through 
     106) would provide, effective December 1, 1994, a 3.0 percent 
     cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in the rates of compensation 
     and dependency and indemnity compensation.
       The Administration's proposed fiscal year 1995 budget 
     request, submitted earlier this year, recommended that 
     increases in the service-connected disability compensation 
     and DIC programs be directly tied to the annual change in the 
     Consumer Price Index (CPI) to provide the same cost-of-living 
     adjustment as the non-service-connected disability pension 
     program and the Social Security program. The President 
     recommended that Congress enact legislation to authorize the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs to adjust the rates under these 
     programs in an amount equal to the cost-of-living adjustment 
     provided for Social Security. The Administration estimated 
     that the cost-of-living increase for these programs, 
     effective December 1, 1994, would be 3.0 percent, based on 
     the changes in the CPI from the third quarter of calendar 
     year 1993 to the third quarter of calendar year 1994.
       During a hearing conducted by the Subcommittee on 
     Compensation, Pension, and Insurance on April 28, 1994, 
     spokesmen for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
     testified that the Administration strongly supports COLA's 
     based upon actual increases in the cost of living. In 
     addition, it was indicated that the Administration believes 
     that full COLA's should be provided for all compensation and 
     DIC recipients. The Committee strongly believes that an 
     annual COLA that, at a minimum, meets any adjustment provided 
     for Social Security is warranted in the case of these two 
     service-connected benefit programs.
       Should the proposed 3.0 percent rate increase be enacted, 
     the changes in compensation and DIC rates, effective December 
     1, 1994, would be as follows:

          COMPENSATION AND DIC RATES EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 1994         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Increase (monthly rate)
                                               -------------------------
                                                    From          To    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of disability or subsection under which payment              
 is authorized:                                                         
    (a)     10 percent........................          $87          $89
    (b)     20 percent........................          166          170
    (c)     30 percent........................          253          260
    (d)     40 percent........................          361          371
    (e)     50 percent........................          515          530
    (f)     60 percent........................          648          667
    (g)     70 percent........................          819          843
    (h)     80 percent........................          948          976
    (i)     90 percent........................        1,067        1,099
    (j)     100 percent.......................        1,774        1,827
Higher statutory awards for certain multiple disabilities:              
    (k)     (1)Additional monthly payment for            70           70
             anatomical loss, or loss of use                            
             of, any of the following: one                              
             foot, one hand, blindness in one                           
             eye (having light perception                               
             only), one or more creative                                
             organs, both buttocks, organic                             
             aphonia (with constant inability                           
             to communicate by speech),                                 
             deafness of both ears (having                              
             absence of air and bone                                    
             conduction)--for each loss.                                
            (2)Limit for veterans receiving           2,207        2,273
             payments under (a) to (j) above.                           
            (3)Limit for veterans receiving           3,093        3,187
             benefits under (l) to (n) below.                           
    (l)     Anatomical loss or loss of use of         2,207        2,273
             both feet, one foot and one hand,                          
             blindness in both eyes (5/200)                             
             visual acuity or less),                                    
             permanently bedridden or so                                
             helpless as to require aid and                             
             attendance.                                                
    (m)     Anatomical loss or loss of use of         2,432        2,504
             both hands, or of both legs, at a                          
             level preventing natural knee                              
             action with prosthesis in place                            
             or of 1 arm and 1 leg at a level                           
             preventing natural knee or elbow                           
             action with prosthesis in place                            
             or blind in both eyes, either                              
             with light perception only or                              
             rendering veteran so helpless as                           
             to require aid and attendance.                             
(Percentage of disability or subsection under which payment             
 is authorized:)                                                        
    (n)     Anatomical loss of both eyes or           2,768        2,851
             blindness with no light                                    
             perception or loss of use of both                          
             arms at a level preventing                                 
             natural elbow action with                                  
             prosthesis in place or anatomical                          
             loss of both legs so near hip as                           
             to prevent use of prosthesis, or                           
             anatomical loss of 1 arm and 1                             
             leg so near shoulder and hip to                            
             prevent use of prosthesis.                                 
    (o)     Disability under conditions               3,093        3,185
             entitling veterans to two or more                          
             of the rates provided in (1)                               
             through (n), no condition being                            
             considered twice in the                                    
             determination, or deafness rated                           
             at 60 percent or more (impairment                          
             of either or both ears service-                            
             connected) in combination with                             
             total blindness (5/200 visual                              
             acuity or less) or deafness rated                          
             at 40 percent or total deafness                            
             in one ear (impairment of either                           
             or both ears service-connected)                            
             in combination with blindness                              
             having light perception only or                            
             anatomical loss of both arms so                            
             near the shoulder as to prevent                            
             use of prosthesis.                                         
    (p)     (1)If disabilities exceed                 3,093        3,185
             requirements of any rates                                  
             prescribed, Secretary of Veterans                          
             Affairs may allow next higher                              
             rate or an intermediate rate, but                          
             in no case may compensation                                
             exceed.                                                    
            (2)Blindness in both eyes (with 5/        3,093        3,185
             200 visual acuity or less)                                 
             together with (a) bilateral                                
             deafness rated at 30 percent or                            
             more disabling (impairment of                              
             either or both ears service-                               
             connected) next higher rate is                             
             payable, or (b) service-connected                          
             total deafness of one ear or                               
             service-connected loss or loss of                          
             use of an extremity the next                               
             intermediate rate is payable, but                          
             in no event may compensation                               
             exceed.                                                    
            (3) Blindness with only light             3,093        1,185
             perception or less with bilateral                          
             deafness (hearing impairment in                            
             either one or both ears is                                 
             service-connected) rated at 10 or                          
             20 percent disabling, the next                             
             intermediate rate is payable, but                          
             in no event may compensation                               
             exceed.                                                    
            (4) Anatomical loss or loss of use        3,093        3,185
             of three extremities, the next                             
             higher rate in paragraphs (l) to                           
             (n) but in no event in excess of.                          
    (q)     [This subsection repealed by                                
             Public Law 90-493.].                                       
    (r)     (1)If veteran entitled to                 1,328        1,367
             compensation under (o) or to the                           
             maximum rate under (p); or at the                          
             rate between subsections (n) and                           
             (o) and under subsection (k), and                          
             is in need of regular aid and                              
             attendance, he shall receive a                             
             special allowance of the amount                            
             indicated at right for aid and                             
             attendance in addition to such                             
             rates.                                                     
            (2)If the veteran, in addition to         1,985        2,044
             need for regular aid and                                   
             attendance is in need of a higher                          
             level of care, a special                                   
             allowance of the amount indicated                          
             at right is payable in addition                            
             to (o) or (p) rate.                                        
    (s)     Disability rated as total, plus           1,985        1,044
             additional disability                                      
             independently ratable at 60                                
             percent or over, or permanently                            
             housebound.                                                
    (t)     [This subsection repealed by                                
             Public Law 99-576.].                                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       In addition to basic compensation rates and/or statutory 
     awards to which the veteran may be entitled, dependency 
     allowances are payable to veterans who are rated at not less 
     than 30 percent disabled. The rates which follow are those 
     payable to veterans while rated totally disabled. If the 
     veteran is rated 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 percent 
     disabled, dependency allowances are payable in an amount 
     bearing the same ratio to the amount specified below as the 
     degree of disability bears to total disability. For example, 
     a veteran who is 50 percent disabled receives 50 percent of 
     the amounts which appear below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Increase (monthly rate)
                                               -------------------------
                                                    From          To    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If and while veteran is rated totally disabled                          
 and--                                                                  
    Has a spouse..............................         $105         $108
    Has a spouse and child....................          178          183
    Has no spouse, 1 child....................           72           74
    For each additional child.................           55           56
    For each dependent parent.................           84           86
    For each child age 18-22 attending school.          164          168
    Has a spouse in nursing home or severely                            
     disabled.................................          195          200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION

       Under the bill as reported, the rates of dependency and 
     indemnity compensation payable with respect to service-
     related deaths occurring on and after January 1, 1993, (and 
     payable with respect to any service-connected death if 
     payments based on a veteran's rank would result in a lesser 
     payment) would increase by 3.0 percent, from $769 to $792 for 
     the base rate, and from $169 to $174 for the additional 
     amount or ``kicker'' payable if the veteran suffered from a 
     service-connected disability rated as totally disabling for a 
     period of at least eight years immediately preceding death.
       The following increases would be provided for surviving 
     spouses of deceased veterans whose service-connected deaths 
     occurred prior to January 1, 1993, and who are not receiving 
     dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) payments under 
     the new rate structure at a higher rate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Increase (monthly rate)
                   Pay grade                   -------------------------
                                                    From          To    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-7...........................................          794          817
E-8...........................................          838          863
E-9...........................................       \1\875       \1\901
W-1...........................................          812          836
W-2...........................................          844          869
W-3...........................................          869          895
W-4...........................................          920          947
O-1...........................................          812          836
O-2...........................................          838          863
O-3...........................................          897          923
O-4...........................................          948          976
O-5...........................................        1,044        1,075
O-6...........................................        1,177        1,212
O-7...........................................        1,271        1,309
O-8...........................................        1,392        1,433
O-9...........................................        1,492        1,536
O-10..........................................     \2\1,636     \2\1,685
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\If the veteran served as Sergeant Major of the Army, Senior Enlisted 
  Advisor of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant 
  Major of the Marine Corps, or Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast 
  Guard, at the applicable time designated by section 402 of this title,
  the surviving spouse's rate shall be $971.                            
\2\If the veteran served as Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Joint      
  Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval           
  Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine 
  Corps or Commandant of the Coast Guard, at the applicable time        
  designated by section 402 of this title, the surviving spouse's rate  
  shall be $1,805.                                                      

       When there is no surviving spouse receiving dependency and 
     indemnity compensation, payment is made in equal shares to 
     the children of the deceased veteran. These rates would be 
     increased as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Increase (monthly rate)
                                               -------------------------
                                                    From          To    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One child.....................................         $327         $336
Two children..................................          471          485
Three children................................          610          628
Each additional child.........................          120          123
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TITLE II--CODIFICATION OF DISABILITIES RESULTING FROM HERBICIDE 
                                EXPOSURE

       Section 201 would codify the administrative action taken by 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pursuant to the authority 
     provided under Public Law 102-4 to add four additional 
     disabilities to the statutory list for which a presumption of 
     service connection is granted to Vietnam era veterans who 
     were exposed to herbicides while serving in Vietnam. The 
     disabilities are as follows: Hodgkin's disease manifest to a 
     degree of 10 percent or more; porphyria cutanea tarda 
     manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more with one year 
     after departure from the Republic of Vietnam during the 
     Vietnam era; respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, 
     bronchus, larynx, or trachea) manifest to a degree of 10 
     percent or more within 30 years of departure from the 
     Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era; and multiple 
     myeloma to a degree of 10 percent or more. The Committee 
     believes it is appropriate to amend the statutory list in 
     section 1116 of title 38, United States Code, to reflect the 
     Secretary's actions in this area.


          TITLE III--BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS ADMINISTRATION

       The VA Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) has a long 
     history of deciding appeals from denials of benefits by the 
     Veterans Benefits Administration in a fair and impartial 
     manner. Although statistics are available which indicate the 
     rate at which previous decisions are sustained, overturned, 
     or remanded, the Committee has never been apprised of 
     evidence of any attempt to change a particular Board 
     section's allowance or denial rate. The Board has no quotas 
     for denial or allowance, and does not keep track of the 
     amount of any benefits granted by the Board. These are 
     indicators that the Board operates independently and without 
     bias in deciding cases.
       Section 301 of the reported bill would provide that members 
     of the Board be compensated at basic rates of pay equivalent 
     to Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). This provision 
     recognizes that the work performed by Board members is very 
     similar to the work performed by ALJ's. It also recognizes 
     the greater responsibility Congress has given individual 
     Board members in making decisions on veterans' appeals by 
     virtue of the enactment of Public Law 103-271, signed by the 
     President on July 1, 1994. This provision is intended to 
     encourage members of the Board to remain at the Board, where 
     their expertise is badly needed.
       The current pay disparity between Board members and 
     Administrative Law Judges is producing a migration of Board 
     members to the Social Security Administration and other 
     federal agencies. According to the June, 1994, report 
     submitted by the Select Panel on Productivity Improvement for 
     the Board of Veterans' Affairs (Select Panel Report), ten 
     percent of the 62 Board members have recently accepted 
     positions as Social Security Administration ALJs. Of the 
     remaining members, 29 percent are eligible for appointment 
     and 40 percent have completed the arduous application 
     process. With an anticipated increase in Social Security ALJ 
     hiring and the current pay disparity, the loss of experienced 
     members can be expected to accelerate. The Committee has thus 
     adopted provisions to restore traditional pay equity between 
     Board members and Administrative Law Judges, who, among other 
     things, make similar disability determinations for the Social 
     Security Administration.
       The Committee is also concerned about the effect on 
     employee moral and productivity caused by the potential 
     termination of employment Board members now face. The 
     Veterans' Judicial Review Act (Pub. L. No. 100-687) imposed 
     term appointments on Board members. Prior to enactment of the 
     Act, Board members held unlimited appointments, providing a 
     relatively high degree of job security. The Select Panel 
     Report concluded that the continuing uncertainty surrounding 
     a Board member's prospect for long-term employment may well 
     result in an adverse effect on productivity, as long-time 
     Board members leave the Board for more certain employment as 
     ALJs for the Social Security Administration or other federal 
     agencies.
       While persuaded that the restoration of permanent 
     appointments for Board members is warranted, the Committee 
     believes that there should be appropriate standards of 
     accountability for Board members, who issue a total of 
     anywhere from 30,000 to 40,000 decisions a year. Such 
     decisions, as commentators have observed of Social Security 
     disability claims, lend themselves to statistical comparisons 
     because of their ``high volume and relative fungibility.'' 
     Paul Verkuil et al., Admin. Conf. U.S., the Federal 
     Administrative Judiciary 157 (August 1992). In 1978, the 
     Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) found 
     that maintaining a judge's ``decisional independence does not 
     preclude the articulation of appropriate productivity norms 
     or efforts to secure adherence to previously enunciated 
     standards and polices underlying the . . . Administration's 
     fulfillment of statutory duties.'' Recommendation 782, 
     ``Procedures for Determining Social Security Disability 
     Claims,'' 1 CFR 305.78-2 (1991).
       In a 1986 Report entitled, ``Case Management as a Tool for 
     Improving Agency Adjudication,'' ACUS added:

     Use of internal agency guidelines for timely case processing 
     and measurements of the quality of work products can maintain 
     high levels of productivity and responsibility. If 
     appropriately fashioned, they can do so without compromising 
     independence of judgment.

     1 CFR 305.86-7.

       Support for this position can also be found in judicial 
     decisions such as Nash v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 675, (2d Cir. 
     1989), where the court held that an agency's reasonable 
     efforts to increase production levels did not infringe on 
     decisional independence, observing that:

     [I]n view of the significant backlog of cases, it was not 
     unreasonable to expect ALJs to perform at minimally 
     acceptable levels of efficiency. Simple fairness to claimants 
     awaiting benefits required no less.

       Given the large caseload facing the Board, the Committee is 
     concerned about the problem, summed up by one Chief 
     Administrative Law judge as follows:

     Most of our ALJs are smart, hardworking and productive, but X 
     likes golf a lot more than opinion writing, Y has lost the 
     ability to analyze issues and evidence if he ever had it, and 
     Z is such a compulsive perfectionist I can never get an 
     opinion out of him.

     Paul Verkuil et al., Admin. Conf. U.S., the Federal 
     Administrative Judiciary 140 (August 1992).

       In order to insure timeliness and quality in decision 
     making, the Committee has thus conditioned receipt of the pay 
     increase and the elimination of term appointments on the 
     establishment of a system for periodic recertification 
     similar to that in effect for members of the Senior Executive 
     Service (SES). Under this system, a Board member would be 
     subject to a performance evaluation every three years. It is 
     the intention of the Committee that this evaluation be based 
     on objective factors such as the timeliness of the work 
     product, overall case management, quality of legal writing 
     and the absence of ``substantive error''. Such substantive 
     error would be determined by a member's reversal rate and 
     remand rate for errors routinely noted in COVA decisions.
       The Committee believes the objective factors to be 
     considered for evaluation purposes should include the failure 
     to state adequate ``reasons and bases'' for the decision, 
     failure to support conclusions of law with findings of fact, 
     and failure to address relevant evidence or credibility 
     determinations. Substantive error would also be determined by 
     a failure to identify and resolve dispositive issues or 
     failure to identify and apply appropriate legal authority in 
     a decision. In this connection, the Committee notes that a 
     recent study by the VA's Office of General Counsel of cases 
     remanded by the Court of Veterans' Appeals in the last 
     quarter of 1993 found that 86 percent were remanded for 
     reasons based on well-established court precedent. In 79 
     percent of those cases the reason for remand was either 
     failure to state adequate ``reasons and bases'' or failure to 
     address evidence/credibility in the Board's decision. Also 
     frequently cited was failure to assist the claimant, 
     necessitating additional medical examination (36 percent) or 
     the securing of government records (13 percent).
       The standards to be employed in determining whether a 
     member's performance during the rating period has 
     demonstrated the quality and quantity of work expected of a 
     Board member are intended to be fair and impartial and, to 
     the maximum extent feasible, to be based on objective, 
     quantifiable standards developed by the Chairman and approved 
     by the Secretary. In developing the standards, the Chairman 
     may consult with any individual or entity, and the Committee 
     suggests that consultation with the American Bar Association 
     would be approriate.
       The Committee notes, for the Chairman's consideration, that 
     the ABA guidelines for ALJs contain the following criteria 
     for evaluation:
       (1) Integrity--avoidance of impropriety and appearance of 
     impropriety, freedom from bias, impartiality;
       (2) Knowledge and understanding of the law--legally sound 
     decisions, knowledge of substantive, procedural and 
     evidentiary law of the jurisdiction, proper application of 
     judicial precedent;
       (3) Communication skills--clarity of bench rulings and 
     other oral communications, quality of written opinions, 
     sensitivity to the impact of demeanor and other nonverbal 
     communications;
       (4) Preparation, attentiveness and control over 
     proceedings--courtesy to all parties, willingness to allow 
     legally interested persons to be heard unless precluded by 
     law;
       (5) Managerial skills--devoting appropriate time to pending 
     matters, discharging administrative responsibilities 
     diligently;
       (6) Punctuality--prompt disposition of pending matter and 
     meeting commitments of time according to rules of court;
       (7) Service to the profession--attendance at and 
     participation in continuing legal education, ensuring that 
     the court is serving in the public to the best of its 
     ability;
       (8) Effectiveness in working with other judges--extending 
     ideas and opinions when on multi-judge panel, soundly 
     critiquing work of colleagues.

     The Federal Administrative Judiciary: Establishing an 
     Appropriate System of Preformance Evaluation for ALJS, 7 
     Administrative Law Journal 589, 608.

       The Committee emphasizes that the recertification 
     procedures should not in any way compromise the decisional 
     independence of the Board member and that there should be no 
     evaluation based on the rates in which appeals are either 
     granted or denied.
       In requiring the Chairman of the Board to establish 
     performance standards for members of the Board, the Committee 
     is aware of the potential conflict between an evaluation of 
     the quality of a Board member's work and an evaluation of the 
     number of cases decided. It has been alleged that pressure to 
     decide a minimum number of cases affects the ability of the 
     decision-maker to fairly consider each case, and may affect 
     the quality of the decision as well as the Board member's 
     independence. However, `` . . . in order for an agency to 
     fulfill its managerial responsibilities, it must be able to 
     control ALJs to some extent.'' Administrative Law Judges, 
     Performance Evaluation, and Production Standards: Judicial 
     Independence Versus Employee Accountability, 54 The George 
     Washington Law Review 591, 612 (1986). The Committee is 
     convinced that an evaluation system can be established which 
     respects Board members' independence, but which also requires 
     that the member be productive in comparison to other Board 
     members.
       If the Chairman determines that a Board member's 
     performance meets the performance standards established for 
     all Board members, the individual shall automatically be 
     recertified. In a case in which the Chairman determines that 
     the member's performance does not meet the performance 
     standards, the Chairman, based on the individual 
     circumstances, shall either grant a conditional 
     recertification to the member or recommend to the Secretary 
     that the member be noncertified. If the member is granted a 
     conditional recertification, the Board member shall be 
     eligible to continue in that position for a period of one 
     year, at which time the Chairman shall again render a 
     determination with respect to the member's performance. If it 
     is then determined that the member's performance still does 
     not meet the Board's performance standards, the Chairman 
     shall recommend to the Secretary that the member be 
     noncertified. If, at that time, however, the member's 
     performance is found to meet the standards, the member's 
     appointment shall be automatically recertified.
       In any case in which a noncertification is recommended by 
     the Chairman, the Secretary shall establish a panel of 
     individuals to review the recommendation. The panel will be 
     established from among employees of the VA, other than 
     members of the Board, and may include other Federal employees 
     with appropriate expertise from outside the VA.
       The panel will review the proposed noncertification and 
     recommend to the Secretary whether the member should be 
     noncertified or should be granted a conditional 
     recertification. After considering the panel's 
     recommendation, the Secretary may either grant the member a 
     conditional recertification or determine that the member be 
     noncertified.
       In the event noncertification is decided by the Secretary, 
     the member shall be removed as a member of the Board, but may 
     be reinstated or employed as an attorney adviser at the Board 
     of Veterans' Appeals.
       The Committee notes that, in addition to removals based on 
     performance, the reported bill also retains existing 
     provisions regarding removal of Board members for reasons 
     other than performance, with the existing safeguards and 
     rights provided under title 5, United States Code, being 
     fully retained by the members.


                  TITLE IV--ADJUDICATION IMPROVEMENTS

       This title may be cited as the ``Veterans' Adjudication 
     Improvements Act of 1994''.
       Section 402 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, a feasibility and impact report concerning 
     reorganization of VA claims adjudication divisions. 
     Administration of the compensation and pension programs is 
     carried out in the 58 regional offices of the Veterans 
     Benefits Administration of the Department, located in the 
     fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the 
     Republic of the Philippines. There is an adjudication 
     division in each of these regional offices except one. By 
     comparison, the Loan Guaranty Program is administered in 47 
     locations. Insurance programs are administered in two 
     locations.
       The purpose of this provision is to require the VA to 
     carefully evaluate its existing adjudication structure in 
     light of diminishing resources and in light of reductions in 
     workforce, and to determine whether greater efficiency could 
     be achieved through reorganization or consolidation of 
     existing divisions. It does not direct the VA to initiate any 
     consolidation activity nor does it intend that any regional 
     offices be closed. To the contrary, the Committee strongly 
     believes that the VA presence in the various localities, 
     particularly in the form of benefit counselors, must be 
     maintained. It is not clear to the Committee whether each 
     regional office must have an adjudication division in order 
     to meet the needs of the veterans served thereby. It is 
     imperative, however, in light of continuing budgetary 
     limitations, that the possibility of consolidation of 
     resources be examined and considered. In this regard, the 
     Committee notes a recent announcement by the Veterans Health 
     Adminstration to integrate, or merge, two or more VA 
     facilities to create a multi-division facility within a 
     single management structure. The integration will affect 33 
     VHA facilities nationwide.
       It is well known that claims for benefits are adjudicated, 
     from time to time, in locations other than the regional 
     office in which the claims were originally received. For 
     instance, in special situations, a particular regional office 
     may be designated as a centralized adjudication center, e.g., 
     Persian Gulf War veterans' claims with environmental aspects 
     (adjudicated in Louisville, Kentucky). In other instances, 
     veterans' claims may be transferred to other offices in order 
     to speed the adjudication of claims and alleviate the backlog 
     of claims in a particular regional office. The Committee is 
     also aware of instances in which larger regional offices have 
     assisted smaller offices in close proximity when the need has 
     arisen. The Committee has no reason to believe that this 
     practice has created any inequities and it is believed that 
     some consolidation of existing divisions would be extremely 
     beneficial in improving the quality and timeliness in claims 
     processing.
       Section 403 of the reported bill would require VA to have 
     in place, within 2 years of enactment of this Act, a master 
     veterans' data system available to all VA regional offices 
     and medical centers. It would require that all beneficiaries' 
     records be identified by a single identification number and 
     that the record include information regarding the 
     individual's entitlement to each VA benefit or service. The 
     development of a Master Veteran Record and the modernization 
     of the VA's information infrastructure was the first 
     recommendation affecting the VA in the National Performance 
     Review's (NPR) report of September 7, 1993. However, the 
     Administration's budget request for fiscal year 1995 did not 
     request additional funds to facilitate the development of the 
     Master Record through the use of outside contractors. 
     Although establishment of a Master Veteran Record has long 
     been included as part of the VA's modernization initiative, 
     the Committee is concerned that the project has lost momemtum 
     and may be substantially delayed or underfunded to the 
     further detriment of the adjudication process.
       Section 404 of the bill as reported would require the VA to 
     submit to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs, within 180 days of the date of enactment of this 
     Act, a comprehensive report describing major pilot programs 
     and initiatives affecting VA claims adjudication. The 
     Committee is aware of numerous ongoing pilot programs and 
     initiatives being developed within the various regional 
     offices. However, information regarding these programs is not 
     available to the Committee in a form which permits it to 
     review or evaluate the individual initiatives. There is also 
     lacking a clear policy as to which programs may be adopted 
     for use on a national basis, nor is there a clear time frame 
     for their adoption. The required report would include the 
     Secretary's recommendations regarding the need for 
     legislation to implement any of such pilot programs. If 
     legislation is not considered necessary, the Secretary shall 
     advise the Committees whether any such program will be 
     implemented and provide a timetable for such implementation.
       Section 405 of the reported bill would add a new section 
     5124 to chapter 51 of title 38, United States Code, to 
     provide that for claims purposes, the written statement of a 
     claimant shall be accepted as proof of relationships, which 
     include marriage, dissolution of a marriage, birth of a 
     child, and death of any family member. The submission of 
     documentation in support of the claimant's statement would be 
     required if the claimant does not reside in a State (defined 
     in title 38, United States Code, to include each of the 
     several States, Territories, and possessions of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico) or if the statement on its face raises a 
     question as to its validity. The Committee would also intend 
     that, if the statement conflicts with previous statements of 
     the claimant, or if conflicting information is contained in 
     the claimant's record, the Secretary could require 
     documentation in support of the statements.
       This section would also add a new section 5125 to chapter 
     51 to provide that the medical examination report of a 
     private physician shall be accepted in support of a claim for 
     benefits, without further examination by VA physicians, if 
     the report is determined by the rating activity to be 
     adequate for rating purposes. The Committee intends that the 
     Secretary have considerable latitude in determining the 
     question of ``adequacy'' for rating purposes. However, the 
     Committee intends that determinations of adequacy for rating 
     purposes include, at a minimum, consideration of the extent 
     to which the report contains clinical manifestations and 
     substantiation of diagnosis by findings of diagnostic 
     techniques generally accepted by medical authorities, such as 
     pathological studies, x-rays, and laboratory tests.
       Section 406 of the reported bill would require the 
     Secretary to take such actions as may be necessary to provide 
     that claims remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by 
     the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals be treated expeditiously. 
     According to a June 1994 report issued by the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs' Select Panel on Productivity Improvement 
     for the BVA, during fiscal year 1993, the average length of 
     time required by regional offices to process appeals remanded 
     from the Board was 353 days, nearly one year. This lengthy 
     period was found to be in addition to the 366 days during 
     which the claim had been pending at the regional office for 
     the initial determination (188 days) and the amount of time 
     it had been pending at the Board (178 days). The Committee 
     finds this lack of responsiveness to be wholly unacceptable 
     and unfair to veterans who have been forced to endure overly 
     long delays in pursuing their claims.
       Section 407 of the bill as reported would amend section 
     7107 of title 38, United States Code, to provide that cases 
     pending on appeal before BVA may be screened at any point in 
     the decision process to determine whether the record is 
     adequate for decisional purposes. The Committee strongly 
     believes that there is a great need for early screening of 
     appeals once they are forwarded to the Board. Data from the 
     select panel noted above indicates that some 178 days may 
     pass before a case is reviewed. The Committee finds this 
     length of time to be unacceptable and intends that new 
     screening methods be immediately established at the Board to 
     permit early reviews of appeals in order that cases needing 
     additional development be quickly remanded for that purpose.
       Section 408 would amend chapter 51 of title 38, United 
     State Code, by adding a new section 5109A to provide that a 
     decision by the Secretary may be revised in the case of clear 
     and unmistakable error, with such revised decision to be 
     effective as of the date of the prior decision. This would 
     codify an existing regulatory provision set forth in section 
     3.105(a) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations. It would 
     provide that a request for review of a decision may be 
     initiated by either the Secretary or the claimant at any time 
     after the decision is made.
       This section would also amend chapter 71 of title 38 by 
     adding a new section 7111 to provide that a decision by the 
     BVA may also be revised in the case of clear and unmistakable 
     error, with such revised decision to be effective from the 
     date of the prior decision. It would provide that a request 
     for review of a decision may be initiated by either the Board 
     or the claimant at any time after that decision is made. The 
     amendments made by this section would apply to any 
     determination made before, on, or after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       In addition, this section would provide that, 
     notwithstanding section 402 of the Veterans Judicial Review 
     Act (38 U.S.C. 7251 note), which limits the jurisdiction of 
     the Court of Veterans Appeals (COVA) to claims in which 
     notices of disagreement were filed on or after November 18, 
     1988, the Court would be provided jurisdiction to review a 
     decision of the Board on a claim alleging clear and 
     unmistakable error in a previous BVA decision, without regard 
     to when the notice of disagreement leading to the BVA 
     decision may have been filed. The provision would apply to 
     claims of clear and unmistakable error that are filed after, 
     or which were pending before the VA, the BVA, COVA, the Court 
     of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the Supreme Court on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       The Committee firmly believes that a veteran should have 
     the statutory right to challenge a previous decision of the 
     VA or the BVA on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error, 
     regardless of when that decision may have been made, and that 
     decisions of the BVA on such claims should also be subject to 
     review by COVA.


                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

       Section 501(a) of the reported bill would amend section 
     1112(c) of title 38, United States Code, by inserting 
     clarifying language to include participation by a U.S. 
     veteran in a foreign nuclear test as a ``radiation-risk 
     activity'' for purposes of section 1112(c). Public Law 100-
     321, enacted on May 1, 1988, established a presumption of 
     service connection for 13 cancers suffered by veterans who 
     participated in atmospheric testing of nuclear devices during 
     and after World War II, or in the occupation of Hiroshima and 
     Nagasaki during World War II. Two additional cancers were 
     added to this list by Public Law 102-578.
       It is the Committee's strong view that the current VA 
     regulation implemention of section 1112(c), 38 C.F.R. 
     3.309(d)(3)(ii)(A), in which the term ``radiation risk 
     activity'' is defined to mean ``[o]nsight participation in a 
     test involving the atmospheric testing of a nuclear device by 
     the United States'' (emphasis added), is incorrect. Contrary 
     to an opinion of the VA General Counsel, it is the 
     Committee's view that there is nothing in the operative 
     statutory language to support its limited interpretation as 
     reflected in the regulation, nor was it ever intended that 
     the language be interpreted in such a restrictive fashion. 
     Because the Committee views the VA's present interpretation 
     of this section as erroneous, this change is made retroactive 
     to May 1, 1988. It is expected that the Secretary will take 
     such action as may be needed to reopen and readjudicate any 
     claim of a veteran denied on the basis of the existing 
     regulation.
       Subsection (b) of this section would clarify congressional 
     intent with respect to the consideration of direct evidence 
     as a means of establishing service connection for a 
     disability resulting from a veteran's exposure to ionizing 
     radiation. The issue was addressed in a decision of the 
     United States Court of Veterans Appeals in Combee v. 
     Principi, 4 Vet. App. 78 (1993); en banc rev. denied, 5 Vet. 
     App. 248 (1993), in which the court upheld a VA determination 
     that a veteran suffering from a disability (neutropenia) 
     attributed to exposure to ionizing radiation could establish 
     service connection on a direct basis only if the disability 
     was enumerated on the list of diseases recognized by the 
     Secretary (for purposes of Public Law 98-542) as being 
     ``radiogenic.'' In this instance the disease was not included 
     on the list; thus, consideration of the veteran's claim for 
     service connection of a disability based on radiation 
     exposure through consideration of direct evidence was 
     precluded.
       The court apparently viewed Congress' enactment of Public 
     Law 98-542 (and later, Public Law 100-321) as providing the 
     exclusive means for establishing veterans' claims for 
     compensation if radiation exposure was cited as the 
     underlying cause of the disability. The court and the VA, 
     however, failed to acknowledge the existence, or possible 
     impact, of section 1113(b) of title 38, United States Code, 
     which reflects congressional intent with respect to veterans' 
     claims for service connection of disabilities which may also 
     be affected by liberalizing statutes providing presumptions 
     of service connection. Section 1113(b) states (as it did in 
     1993) that ``[n]othing in section 1112 or 1116 of this title 
     . . . shall be construed to prevent the granting of service 
     connection for any disease or disorder otherwise shown by 
     sound judgment to have been incurred in or aggravated by 
     active military, naval, or air service.'' The two sections 
     referred to in this section, sections 1112 and 1116, contain 
     specific statutory presumptions of service connection for 
     certain disabilities suffered by certain groups of veterans, 
     including former prisoners of war, Vietnam veterans, and 
     veterans who were exposed to ionizing radiation through their 
     participation in identified radiation-risk activities.
       Contrary to the Secretary's interpretation as upheld by the 
     court, Congress did not intend, in its enactment of Pubic Law 
     98-542, that the Secretary develop a means for determining 
     veterans' claims for benefits with radiation-exposure aspects 
     to the exclusion of other existing methods. Further, the 
     Committee wishes to make clear that, when the Congress has 
     enacted liberalizing legislation, such as that which 
     providing benefits on a presumptive basis, there has been no 
     intention on its part to adversely affect veterans' rights 
     under existing laws. In order to fully clarify congressional 
     intent in this area, the reported bill would amend section 
     1113(b) to specifically incorporate a reference to section 5 
     of Public Law 98-542, under which the Secretary has 
     established additional procedures for adjudicating claims 
     based on radiation exposures, other than those for which 
     presumptions are provided, to insure that veterans be 
     permitted to seek to establish their claims for compensation 
     on a direct basis. The amendment made by this section would 
     apply to claims filed on and after the date of enactment of 
     this section.
       Section 502 would extend the Secretary's authority to 
     maintain the regional office in the Republic of the 
     Philippines until December 31, 1999. This authority is now 
     set to expire on December 31, 1994. The VA requested an 
     extension of this authority in a letter to the Speaker of the 
     House dated June 21, 1993. In a report issued in July 1993 
     (GAO/HRD-93-96), the General Accounting Office concluded that 
     a premature closing of the Manila regional office could be 
     costly and recommended that it should be maintained for an 
     indefinite period until the VA can demonstrate that ``(1) it 
     can maintain proper internal controls of benefit payments if 
     the office is closed and its functions moved to the United 
     States, (2) closure would be cost effective notwithstanding 
     possible higher administrative costs in the United States, 
     and (3) VA can maintain adequate services to beneficiaries 
     from the United States.'' In light of these recommendations, 
     the Committee believes a 5-year extension of this authority 
     is appropriate.
       Section 503 would amend current law to provide that an 
     application filed for non-service-connected pension under 
     chapter 15 of title 38, United States Code, or parent's DIC 
     under chapter 13 of such title, made within one year of a 
     renouncement of such benefits, shall be paid as if the 
     renouncement had not occurred. Under current law if a veteran 
     renounces his or her right to a benefit and then subsequently 
     reapplies, the claim is treated as an original claim and only 
     prospective income may be considered in determining the 
     veteran's eligibility, or the amount of the benefit. The 
     Committee has been advised that, in some instances, veterans 
     may have renounced their benefits in anticipation of receipt 
     of increased sums of income, and then, following such 
     receipt, may have subsequently filed new claims for pension. 
     The Committee believes such actions undermine the intent of 
     these need-based programs and seeks to prevent this through 
     the enactment of this amendment.
       Section 504 would amend section 5112 of title 38, United 
     States Code, by adding new subsection 5112(d) to provide that 
     the effective date for the discontinuance of compensation due 
     to the death of a veteran shall be the last day of the month 
     of death in the case of a totally disabled veteran with a 
     surviving spouse whose death does not result in an award of 
     dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) to the surviving 
     spouse. This would result in the creation of one month's 
     worth of accrued compensation which could be paid to the 
     surviving spouse in accordance with section 5121 of title 38, 
     United States Code.
       Under current law, the effective date for the 
     discontinuance of an award of compensation based on the death 
     of the veteran is the last day of the month preceding the 
     month in which the veteran dies. This is true whether the 
     veteran dies on the first day of the month or the last. This 
     provision is intended to address the limited situation where 
     the veteran, although rated totally disabled as the result of 
     a service connected disability, either does not die as a 
     result of such disability or has not been so rated for a 
     period of ten years. In these cases, the surviving spouses 
     are not eligible for DIC. Given the fact that the current 
     monthly rate for a totally disabled veteran with a spouse is 
     $1,879 ($1,774 + $105), and that under current law that 
     entire amount must be returned to the VA regardless of the 
     date on which the veteran died, the Committee believes it is 
     approriate to effect this change in the effective date for 
     this limited category of surviving spouses.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this 
important bill.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4088, 
as amended, Veterans Benefits Act of 1994.
  I would like to commend the leadership of the Subcommittee on 
Compensation, Pension, and Insurance, namely chairman Slattery and the 
ranking minority member, Mr. Bilirakis, for their efforts on behalf of 
our veteran population.
  Also, of course, Chairman Montgomery has lost no time in bringing 
this important bill to the House for consideration.
  H.R. 4088 would provide for a 3-percent-cost-of-living adjustment for 
service connected veterans and survivors of veterans who died as a 
result of their service.
  In addition, H.R. 4088 codifies additional diseases presumed to be 
the result of herbicide exposure. This action was previously taken 
administratively by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Finally, H.R. 4088 provides for adjudication improvements at the 
Board of Veterans' Appeals. The Board estimates as much as a 6-year 
wait for appeals by the end of fiscal year 1995. By offering 
compensation equivalent to that of administrative law judges, the Board 
will be able to retain many of its most experienced members, rather 
than see them become ALJ's at the Social Security Administration. 
Already, 10 percent of board members have left to become ALJ's. By 
implementing a master veterans' record in all regional offices and 
medical centers, there will be greater access to files, and by allowing 
claimants to submit written statements as proof of relationship, 
instead of more formal evidence, claims files will be processed more 
timely.
  Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan effort, supported by the full House 
Veterans Affairs Committee, benefits the whole veteran community. I 
urge the support of my colleagues for H.R. 4088, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Lewis].
  (Mr. LEWIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4088 which makes important 
improvements to veterans' benefits. It also corrects an unfair 
situation I have fought hard to change.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs was developed for one reason and I 
quote ``To care for him who shall have borne the battle * * * and for 
his widow * * * and his orphan.''
  For too long now, the widows of veterans have been subject to a very 
cruel practice.
  When a veteran who receives a disability compensation or pension 
passes away, the VA actually revokes that month's check from his widow.
  This happened to a constituent of mine whose husband died just hours 
before midnight on the last day of March. She was forced to pay the VA 
over $1,200, money that was already spent on her husband's living 
expenses.
  I cannot believe our VA would demand money from a recent widow of a 
veteran. To remedy this unfair situation, I came up with the following 
solution.
  The VA would prorate the final compensation check a veteran gets to 
the day of death.
  Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this is the fairest way for Congress to 
pay the debt we owe our veterans' families. I am appalled the spouse of 
one of our veterans would be penalized by the VA.
  The legislation before us includes a provision which will help some 
of our most needy veterans' spouses.
  This is a start, and I hope my colleagues will see fit to further 
open this door for other spouses.
  If passed, this bill will give the spouse of a totally disabled 
veteran his entire month's check, if she is not eligible for other 
widows benefits, such as DIC.
  At least we can help the most needy spouse, the widow whose husband 
was totally disabled.
  In passing this bill, we are sending a message to the VA that we will 
not tolerate this type of treatment of our veterans' families.
  For acting in a bipartisan fashion to craft a workable compromise, I 
wish to thank the distinguished chairman, Mr. Montgomery, the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Bob Stump], the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Slattery], and my colleague, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Bilirakis].
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Lewis], for his help in this legislation. It was constructive, and I 
appreciate the gentleman working with our committee. The gentleman is 
not a member of the committee, but he came in with this great idea.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the chairman of the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Myers], for their cooperation on title III of the bill. They let us 
bring this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Lewis] for his contribution to this legislation and the hard work he 
has done for veterans, and once again my thanks go the chairman 
Montgomery for his leadership in bringing these two important bills to 
the floor.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 
4088, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1994. I commend my colleague, the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Slattery] for introducing this legislation 
that ensures our Nation's veterans receive the compensation and the 
attention that they deserve.
  Our Nation's veterans deserve the very best. They have, after all 
dedicated their lives to promoting the goals and ideals of our Nation. 
When the battle cry is sounded, our servicemen and women are quick to 
respond.
  Based upon the sacrifices and contributions of our Nation's military, 
it is only fitting that we, as a nation, provide the benefits, the 
compensation, and the medical care that they have valiantly earned.
  This legislation does just that. First, H.R. 4088 provides a 3-
percent cost-of-living adjustment [COLA], for the Department of 
Veterans Affairs veterans' disability compensation programs.
  Second, the legislation guarantees that Hodgkin's disease, porphyria 
cutanea tarda, respiratory cancers, and multiple myeloma are added to 
the list of diseases associated with herbicide exposure; and are 
therefore eligible for service-connected disability compensation.
  Also, H.R. 4088 makes numerous improvements to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs claims adjudication process. The terms of H.R. 4088 
specifically requires the VA to:
  Report to Congress within 180 days of enactment on reorganizing VA 
claims and adjudication divisions and the agency's major pilot programs 
and initiatives;
  Implement a veterans data system that is accessible to all regional 
offices and medical centers;
  Accept written statements, as proof of relationship, for claims 
purposes, eliminating the need for certified copies of records;
  Accept private physician medical reports for benefits claims;
  Compensate Board of Veterans Appeals members at a level consistent 
with the salaries of administrative law judges; and,
  Treat claims that are returned by the Board of Veterans Appeals in an 
prompt and timely manner.
  I am proud to support this legislation that does much to improve the 
benefits and services that are provided to our Nation's veterans. I 
urge my colleagues to join in support of H.R. 4088.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4088, the 
Veterans' Benefits Act of 1994.
  This bill is relatively straightforward, but it has a number of 
important provisions of great concern to many of this country's 27 
million veterans.
  H.R. 4088 sets a 3-percent cost-of-living adjustment for benefits 
paid to disabled veterans and their surviving spouses and dependents. 
It also adds Hodgkin's disease, respiratory cancers, and other diseases 
to the list of illnesses associated with herbicide exposure and 
presumed to be service connected.
  One of the biggest challenges facing a disabled veteran is getting 
through the Department of Veterans Affairs' bureaucratic adjudication 
process. This bill strives to make much-needed improvements in that 
adjudication process and it requires the VA to submit a report about 
the feasibility of reorganizing its claims adjudication divisions. H.R. 
4088 also requires the VA to develop objective performance standards 
for members of the Board of Veterans Appeals, and to periodically 
evaluate their performance.
  For many of our disabled veterans and their families who live on 
fixed incomes, this is an extremely important piece of legislation. The 
cost-of-living adjustment provided for in this bill will help many of 
the 150,000 veterans in the State of Maine, and all across the country, 
make ends meet. But the true meaning of this bill goes much deeper.
  This bill reflects the responsibility we in Congress have to those 
who have borne the brunt of battle, and to the commitment we have made 
to their families. This responsibility and commitment on the part of 
the American Government toward our disabled veterans is one that I hold 
sacred, for this Nation owes a debt to these veterans that can never be 
repaid. They answered the call when their country needed them and the 
promises made at that time must be honored.
  We must never forgot the sacrifices made by our disabled veterans or 
their families. In a small way, this bill is just one way that this 
body remembers and honors them.
  I strongly urge all of my colleague to support this bill, and to show 
our disabled veterans that we do recognize the sacrifices they have 
made on behalf of their country.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4088, 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1994.
  H.R. 4088 provides a cost-of-living adjustment for disabled veterans 
and recipients of dependency and indemnity compensation [DIC]. This is 
a 3-percent cola effective December 1, 1994.
  H.R. 4088 also adds a variety of illnesses ranging from Hodgkin's 
disease to multiple myeloma to the list of diseases associated with 
herbicide exposure. In this measure, we are simply codifying 
administrative action already taken by the VA. These presumptions for 
service connection are important for the thousands of veterans 
afflicted with these illnesses.
  During its consideration of H.R. 4088, the compensation subcommittee 
adopted an amendment to the bill which makes improvements to the claims 
adjudication process. Throughout the 103d Congress, the subcommittee 
has been examining the VA's claims processing system. If enacted, H.R. 
4088 will help reduce the huge backlog currently plaguing the system.
  I would like to thank subcommittee Chairman Jim Slattery for his 
assistance in correcting a problem which I strongly believe has had a 
negative impact on the ability of the Board of Veterans Appeals to 
process veterans claims in a timely fashion. The problem I am referring 
to is the exodus of experienced Board members.
  In the last year, a total of eight Board members have left to become 
administrative law judges [ALJ's] for the Social Security 
Administration. Overall, the Board has lost more than 10 percent of its 
current membership to the Social Security Administration. If losses to 
the Board continue, it will take many years to regain the knowledge, 
experience, and expertise departing members take with them.
  One of the main reasons members are leaving the Board is the pay 
differential between Board members and administrative law judges. At 
one time, the Board members were recognized as performing professional 
responsibilities at least comparable to those of administrative law 
judges.
  However, since the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990, 
ALJ's have been placed on a pay scale that awards them compensation 
averaging at least $20,000 more per year than that of the average Board 
member.
  I have introduced legislation, H.R. 69, that restores pay 
comparability between Board members and ALJ's. I am pleased that 
Chairman Slattery has recognized the seriousness of this issue and 
included a pay comparability provision in H.R. 4088.
  In addition, H.R. 4088 eliminates term limits for members of the 
Board of Veterans Appeals. Term limits are another reason why many 
members are considering leaving the Board. While the compromise 
amendment eliminates terms, it sets up a new recertification process 
for Board members. I believe this new system will ensure that Board 
members are treated fairly and that veterans claims are adjudicated in 
a timely manner.
  In closing, I want to take a moment to commend Chairman Slattery for 
the leadership he has brought to this subcommittee. Jim is leaving 
Congress at the end of the current session. I have enjoyed working with 
him on several important matters this Congress, and I want to wish him 
the best of luck in his future endeavors.
  H.R. 4088 is a good bill which will benefit our Nation's veterans. I 
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4088.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4088, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend 
title 38, United States Code, to provide a cost-of-living adjustment in 
the rates of disability compensation for veterans with service-
connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity 
compensation for survivors of such veterans, to revise and improve 
veterans' benefits programs, and for other purposes.''
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Veteran's Affairs be discharged from further consideration 
of the Senate bill (S. 1927) to increase the rates of compensation for 
veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of 
dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain 
disabled veterans, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

                                S. 1927

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-
     of-Living Adjustment Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. DISABILITY COMPENDATION AND DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY 
                   COMPENSATION RATE INCREASES.

       (a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall, as provided in paragraph (2), increase, effective 
     December 1, 1994, the rates of and limitations on Department 
     of Veterans Affairs disability compensation and dependency 
     and indemnity compensation.
       (2)(A) The Secretary shall increase each of the rates and 
     limitations provided for in sections 1114, 1115(1), 1162, 
     1311, 1313, and 1314 of title 38, United States Code. The 
     increase shall be the same percentage that benefit amounts 
     payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     401 et seq.) are increased effective December 1, 1994, as a 
     result of a determination under section 215(i) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 415(i)).
       (B) In the computation of increased rates and limitations 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A), amounts of $0.50 or more shall 
     be rounded to the next higher dollar amount and amounts of 
     less than $0.50 shall be rounded to the next lower dollar 
     amount.
       (b) Special Rule.--The Secretary may adjust 
     administratively, consistent with the increases made under 
     subsection (a), the rates of disability compensation payable 
     to persons within the purview of section 10 of Public Law 85-
     857 (2 Stat. 1263) who are not in receipt of com pensation 
     payable pursuant to chapter 11 of title 38, United States 
     Code.
       (c) Publication Requirement.--At the same time as the 
     matters specified in section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) are required to be 
     published by reason of a determination made under section 
     215(i) of such Act during fiscal year 1994, the Secretary 
     shall publish in the Federal Register the rates and 
     limitations referred to in subsection (a)(2)(A) as increased 
     under this section.


                    motion offered by mr. montgomery

  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Montgomery moves to strike all after the enacting 
     clause of the Senate bill, S. 1927, and to insert in lieu 
     thereof the provisions of H.R. 4088, as amended, as passed by 
     the House.

  The motion was agreed to.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed.
  The title of the Senate bill was amended so as to read:

       A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide a 
     cost-of-living adjustment in the rates of disability 
     compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities 
     and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for 
     survivors of such veterans, to revise and improve veterans' 
     benefits programs, and for other purposes.

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  A similar House bill (H.R. 4088) was laid on the table.

                          ____________________