[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 118 (Friday, August 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     S. 1908: VETERANS' CLAIMS ADJUDICATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1994

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, I am delighted that the Senate is considering S. 
1908, the proposed Veterans' Claims Adjudication Improvement Act of 
1994. I urge my colleagues to give their unanimous support to this 
bill.
  Mr. President, S. 1908, which I will refer to as the committee bill, 
as it comes before the Senate, is derived from four bills--S. 1905, S. 
1906, S. 1907, and S. 1908--all of which I introduced on March 8, 1994.
  S. 1908, as introduced, was originally cosponsored by committee 
members Dennis DeConcini, Bob Graham, Daniel K. Akaka, and Thomas A. 
Daschle. Senators Paul Wellstone and Jeff Bingaman joined later as 
cosponsors. S. 1908, as introduced, would have required the 
Administrative Conference of the United States [ACUS] to conduct an 18-
month study of the adjudication system of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs.
  S. 1905 was introduced with the cosponsorship of committee members 
DeConcini, Graham, Akaka, Daschle, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Senator 
Wellstone joined later as a cosponsor. S. 1905 would have made some 
miscellaneous changes in certain claims procedures, in an effort to 
help streamline the claims process with respect to those procedures.
  S. 1906 was introduced with the cosponsorship of committee members 
DeConcini, Graham, Akaka, and Daschle. Senator Wellstone joined later 
as a cosponsor. S. 1906 would have overruled the decision of the United 
States Court of Veterans Appeals in Combee v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 78 
(1993).
  S. 1907 was introduced with the cosponsorship of committee members 
Graham and Daschle. Senator Wellstone joined later as a cosponsor. S. 
1907, as introduced, would have required VA to immediately adjudicate 
all claims that may be on hold pending final resolution of the issue 
decided by the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals in Gardner v. Derwinski, 
1 Vet. App. 584 (1991), aff'd sub nom. Gardner v. Brown, 5 F. 3d 1456 
(Fed. Cir. 1993), cert. granted, 62 U.S.L.W. 3657 (U.S. Apr. 4, 1994) 
(No. 93-1128), and to grant those claims that could have been granted 
under the standard used by VA prior to the original Gardner decision.
  Mr. President, the committee met on April 14, 1994, and voted 
unanimously to report S. 1908, with an amendment which incorporated 
provisions derived from the four bills.
  The committee bill includes provisions which would one, require ACUS 
to conduct a study of the processes and procedures of VA for the 
disposition of veterans benefits; two, improve the processing of 
benefits claims by VA; three, clarify that service connection for 
disabilities arising from exposure to ionizing radiation may be 
established by direct evidence; and four, require VA to adjudicate and 
resolve certain claims related to medical malpractice in the health 
care services provided by VA.


                    study of va claims adjudication

  Mr. President, title I of the committee bill, which is derived from 
S. 1908 as introduced, would require a comprehensive study by the 
Administrative Conference of the United States of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs' system for adjudicating benefit claims.
  VA's system for processing benefit claims--designed to be informal 
and nonadversarial--developed over the course of many years prior to 
the enactment of the Veterans' Judicial Review Act of 1988, Public Law 
100-687, which afforded veterans the right to seek judicial review of 
their VA benefit decisions for the first time in history. Many aspects 
of this system were intended to be beneficial to veterans, such as 
procedures related to the development of claims and assistance to the 
claimant. However, as the court has recognized in numerous decisions, 
VA did not achieve many of the elements claimed to be an integral part 
of the system.

  The Board of Veterans' Appeals [BVA] currently has a backlog of 
nearly 40,000 pending cases. In fiscal year 1993, the average time it 
took BVA to render a decision on appeal was 466 days. However, based on 
information for both the first and second quarters of fiscal year 1994, 
BVA estimates that the average response time will be 830 days by 
September 30, 1994.
  In its budget submission for fiscal year 1995, VA reported that for 
fiscal year 1993, the average response time for an original 
compensation claim filed at a VA regional office was 189 days, and 119 
days for an original pension claim. VA estimated that for fiscal year 
1994, those times would increase to 226 days for a compensation claim 
and 128 days for a pension claim.
  Mr. President, the Veterans' Benefits Administration [VBA] has taken 
some significant steps internally to reduce the case backlog at the 
regional offices, which are admirable. However, in order to continue 
this effort, title I of the committee bill would mandate a 
comprehensive, 18-month study of the VA claims adjudication system by 
the Administrative Conference of the United States. The study would 
involve review of the claims process at the regional office level and 
the appellate process at BVA. The purpose of the study would be to 
evaluate the entire system in order to determine the efficiency of its 
processes and procedures, including the impact of judicial review on 
the system, means for reducing the backlog of pending cases in the 
system, and means for improving timeliness and quality of the claims 
process.
  In the course of its evaluation and study, the committee bill would 
require ACUS to consult with representatives of veterans service 
organizations and other organizations and entities representing 
veterans before VA, to include individuals who furnish such 
representation.
  Within 1 year after the date of enactment, ACUS would be required to 
submit to the Secretary and the committees a preliminary report on the 
study. Within 18 months following enactment, ACUS would be required to 
submit a full report on its study to the Secretary and the committees. 
The report would include: One, the findings and conclusions of ACUS 
with respect to the study; two, the recommendations of ACUS for 
improving the VA adjudication system; and three, any other information 
and recommendations concerning the system that ACUS considers 
appropriate.
  Mr. President, while VA is taking a number of actions internally to 
improve its adjudication and appeals systems, further improvements 
could be made, Many of which may require legislation. However, 
currently we do not have sufficient information available on which to 
base comprehensive reform of the system. There simply is not enough 
specific data before the committee on the effect of judicial review on 
the claims process at the regional offices and on the appellate system 
at BVA. There must be a more extensive review of the system by an 
independent entity, and the committee bill would provide for that 
review. In addition, the report that ACUS would be required to 
complete, to include recommendations for improving the system, would 
provide a foundation on which Congress could base any necessary 
legislative measures for such improvement.
  Mr. President, I strongly believe that the problems currently faced 
by VBA and BVA will require extensive, long-term solutions. However, 
such significant actions to reform the system cannot be taken without 
more considerate analysis of the problems that exist. Such an analysis 
would appropriately be conducted by an outside body that has no vested 
interest in the existing system. Prior evaluations of the VA system 
often have been conducted by VA or by other entities that participate 
in the Department's adjudication process. Therefore, such reviews can 
be challenged as not being objective. The committee bill would 
authorize an objective and independent assessment.


    elimination of the requirement for annual income questionnaires

  Mr. President, section 201 of the committee bill would eliminate the 
requirement that VA pension recipients file annual income verification 
reports, thereby making it discretionary for VA to require these 
reports.
  Pension is a needs-based benefit paid to certain veterans and 
surviving spouses and children. To be eligible for pension, a veteran 
must be permanently and totally disabled from a non-service-connected 
disability, meet certain income restrictions, and meet military service 
requirements. Additional monthly amounts are payable to the veteran on 
behalf of the veteran's spouse and dependent children. In addition, 
surviving spouses and children of wartime veterans who meet certain 
income requirements are eligible for a non-service-connected death 
pension.
  Currently, VA must require annual income reports for purposes of 
pension eligibility. These income reports must contain information on 
the individual's annual income for the previous year, the corpus of the 
individual's estate, the income and estate of any spouse or dependent 
child, and an estimate of income for the current year and any expected 
increase in the value of his or her estate. For a surviving child, the 
report must include this information for any person legally responsible 
for the support of the child and with whom the child resides.
  Additionally, revised reports must be filed with VA whenever there is 
a change in estimated annual income or the value of the individual's 
estate.
  Mr. President, section 201 of the committee bill would eliminate the 
statutory requirement for income reports for purposes of pension 
eligibility. VA would, therefore, have discretionary authority to 
require the submission of the questionnaires. Because VA now has 
computer matching programs with the Internal Revenue Service and the 
Social Security Administration for income verification purposes, the 
income report is no longer necessary in every case.


              documents accepted as proof of relationships

  Mr. President, section 202 of the committee bill, which is derived 
from section 2 of S. 1905, would require VA to accept photocopies of 
documents as proof of marriage, dissolution of marriage, birth, or 
death, for purposes of eligibility for dependents' benefits.
  Mr. President, under current VA regulations, whenever a document is 
required to prove a relationship to a veteran, such as a birth or 
marriage certificate, the claimant must submit a certified copy of that 
document. Under existing regulations, VA cannot accept as evidence 
supporting a claim uncertified photocopies of documents necessary to 
establish marriage, divorce, the annulment of a marriage, birth, the 
relationship of a child to the veteran, death, or any evidence from a 
foreign country.
  Mr. President, section 202 of the committee bill is a freestanding 
provision that would allow VA to accept photocopies of documents 
necessary to establish birth, death, marriage, or dissolution of a 
marriage for purposes of certain VA benefits. This requirement arises 
primarily in connection with claims benefits to be paid to or on behalf 
of dependents or survivors of veterans. If there is a question with 
respect to the validity of the photocopy, the bill would allow VA to 
require the claimant to submit supporting documentation. This measure 
would relieve claimants of an unnecessary burden and expedite the 
decisionmaking process where evidence of this type is involved.


              acceptance of private physician examinations

  Mr. President, section 203 of the committee bill, which is derived 
from section 3 of S. 1905, would allow VA to accept medical examination 
reports of private physicians in support of disability claims, thereby 
eliminating the requirement for a VA examination.
  Mr. President, currently, a complete physical examination conducted 
by a VA hospital or outpatient clinic generally is required for 
purposes of a claim for disability compensation or pension. VA will 
accept only a VA examination for determining whether a veteran is 
disabled or to rate the degree of the veteran's disability.
  Mr. President, section 203 of the committee bill is a freestanding 
provision which would provide VA with the discretion to accept the 
medical examination report of a private physician as support of a 
diagnosis of a disability for purposes of either a compensation or 
pension claim, as well as for purposes of rating the claimant's 
disability. This would eliminate the current requirement that a veteran 
undergo an examination by a VA physician to confirm the diagnosis made 
by a veteran's private physician. The provision would require that such 
a report include sufficient clinical data to support the diagnosis or 
provide a reliable basis for a disability rating in an original claim, 
not just for an increase in degree of disability.


              transfer of military service medical records

  Mr. President, section 204 of the committee bill, derived from 
section 4 of S. 1905, would require VA to report to Congress on the 
status of agreements concerning the transfer of military records from 
the Department of Defense [DOD] to VA immediately after a veteran's 
separation.
  Mr. President, a crucial component of any claim for VA benefits is 
the veteran's service medical records. The report of the Blue Ribbon 
Panel on Claims Processing identified problem areas affecting VBA's 
timeliness and workload backlogs. The panel clearly identified that the 
response time for requested evidence necessary to develop a claim for 
benefits, including service medical records, is excessive.
  Mr. President, section 204 of the committee bill would require VA to 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on the 
status of an agreement between DOD and VA to provide for the immediate 
transfer of a servicemember's medical records upon discharge from the 
service. The report would be due to the committees within 90 days after 
enactment of the statute.
  Mr. President, an agreement between DOD and VA covering all branches 
of service would improve the timeliness of VA's claims processing 
because a significant amount of time is spent waiting for the transfer 
of service medical records. Although the committee has received 
encouraging feedback from VA on this issue, a written report from VA 
for the record is necessary because no official memorandum of 
understanding exists between the Secretary of the Navy or the Secretary 
of the Air Force and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.


  service connection for certain disabilities relating to exposure to 
                           ionizing radiation

  Mr. President, section 301 of the committee bill, derived from 
section 1 of S. 1906, would overrule the decision of the U.S. Court of 
Veterans Appeals in Combee v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 78 (1933).
  Mr. President, in 1984, Congress enacted the Veterans' Dioxin and 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act, Public Law 98-542, which 
required VA to establish standards for adjudicating claims based on 
exposure to agent orange and radiation. VA adopted regulations to 
implement the requirements of this law for both types of claims.
  In Combee, the Court of Veterans Appeals held that a veteran may not 
establish direct service connection for a condition based on radiation 
exposure unless the condition is on VA's regulatory list of radiogenic 
diseases issued pursuant to Public Law 98-542. The committee believes 
that the essence of the court's decision is that, by establishing a 
process in Public Law 98-542 for claims based on radiation exposure, 
Congress repealed the general compensation law as to such claims. 
Stated another way, the court's decision seems to stand for the 
proposition that while providing an avenue by which veterans exposed to 
radiation might obtain VA benefits, Congress foreclosed these veterans 
from using the normal route available to all other veterans seeking to 
establish service connection.

  In Combee, there was no dispute that the veteran had taken part in a 
radiation-risk activity, as required under both section 1112 of title 
38, United States Code, for purposes of presumptive service connection 
of the disease, and under the regulation that implements Public Law 98-
542 for purposes of proving direct service connection of the disease. 
However, he sought disability compensation for a condition that was 
neither on the list of conditions afforded a statutory presumption of 
service connection based on radiation exposure, nor on the list of 
diseases considered to be radiogenic by VA for purposes of direct 
service connection under the regulation. Because the veteran's claim 
involved a condition that did not appear on either list, the court held 
that he could not show direct service connection under the general 
authority available to all other veterans.
  The basic theory of service connection, as set forth in sections 1110 
and 1131 of title 38, United States Code, requires that a veteran be 
given an opportunity to submit evidence in support of his or her claim 
for service connection. This involves a fundamental principle that the 
veteran must not be summarily prohibited from attempting to prove that 
the condition is directly related to service. That principle must apply 
even if the veteran's condition is not a condition Congress or VA 
automatically recognizes as associated with exposure to an 
environmental hazard.
  Mr. President, section 301 of the committee bill would amend Public 
Law 98-542 to clarify Congress' intent in enacting the law and to 
ensure that the general provisions governing disability compensation 
with respect to claims based on exposure to radiation remain intact and 
available to all veterans. The amendment to Public Law 98-542 would 
specify that the regulations adopted by VA under the statute may not 
prohibit a veteran who served during an eligible period of service from 
establishing service connection for a disease or disability based on 
exposure to radiation, under section 1110 or section 1131, even though 
the veteran's condition is not considered by VA to be a radiogenic 
disease.
  Mr. President, I strongly believe that the court's decision does not 
accurately reflect the underlying congressional intent of this statute. 
The legislative history of Public Law 98-542 includes no indication 
that Congress intended the law to preclude veterans from using the 
usual means of proving direct service connection if the veteran is able 
to do so by submitting sufficient supporting evidence. A veteran must 
always have the opportunity to prove direct service connection. A 
veteran would face difficulty in trying to demonstrate direct service 
connection based on radiation exposure for a condition not already 
recognized as radiogenic, but the opportunity must be available 
nevertheless.


   adjudication and resolution of certain claims relating to medical 
                              malpractice

  Mr. President, section 302 of the committee bill, derived from 
section 2 of S. 1906, contains a freestanding provision that would 
require VA to immediately adjudicate all claims that may be on hold 
pending final resolution of the issue decided by the U.S. Court of 
Veterans Appeals in Gardner v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 584 (1991), 
aff'd, sub nom. Brown v. Gardner, 5 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1993), cert. 
granted, 62 U.S.L.W. 3657 (U.S. Apr. 4, 1994) (No. 93-1128), and to 
grant those claims that could have been granted under the standard used 
by VA prior to the original Gardner decision.
  Mr. President, section 1151 of title 38, United States Code, governs 
claims for disability compensation or dependency and indemnity 
compensation for injury or death resulting from care in a VA medical 
facility or while pursuing a course of vocational rehabilitation. Under 
this provision, a veteran injured in a VA facility or in vocational 
rehabilitation can receive monthly disability compensation in the same 
manner as if he or she were injured during military service. A survivor 
of a veteran who dies as the result of such an injury can receive 
monthly DIC payments.

  In Gardner, the Court of Veterans Appeals found that VA's regulation 
interpreting this provision was too restrictive and invalidated that 
regulation. The regulation required that the claimant show 
``carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or 
similar instances of indicated fault on the part of VA.'' The statute, 
on the other hand, requires no such demonstration. The court held that 
in issuing the regulation, VA exceeded its statutory authority.
  Following the decision of the court, VA placed a moratorium on all 
denials of claims filed under section 1151, sending interim 
instructions to VA regional offices. VA appealed the decision to the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the lower 
court's decision. On January 11, 1994, VA filed a petition for 
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which was granted on April 4, 
1994. Following VA's petition for certiorari and the Supreme Court's 
grant of the petition, VA issued further instructions to its regional 
offices reiterating the procedures concerning the suspension of all 
denials.
  Because the moratorium was placed only on denials, VA should continue 
to allow those claims that would have been granted under the 
restrictive, invalidated standard. However, the committee has received 
information from veterans indicating that some VA facilities have 
suspended all action on section 1151 claims. Therefore, some VA field 
offices may be failing to grant claims that could be granted under the 
invalidated standard.
  Mr. President, section 302 of the committee bill would require VA to 
adjudicate all claims filed under section 1151, using the standard 
under the law existing prior to the decision of the Court of Veterans 
Appeals in Gardner, and grant those claims that could have been allowed 
under the former VA standard. Those claims that would not have been 
granted under the prior regulation would continue to be held in 
abeyance.
  The committee bill would ensure that VA fulfills its responsibility 
to those veterans who have claims based on clear VA negligence or 
fault, notwithstanding the Federal court decisions on this issue.
  Mr. President, the provisions in the pending measure are vitally 
important. My hope is that, following Senate action, we can work with 
our colleagues in the House to enact legislation quickly so that 
veterans may begin to feel the effects of an improved claims 
adjudication system as soon as possible. They deserve no less. They 
have a right to the efficient processing of their claims for the 
benefits they earned through their military service.
  Mr. President, I express my deep appreciation to the distinguished 
ranking Republican member of the Senate committee, Mr. Murkowski, and 
all other members of the committee.
  Mr. President, I am committed to working over the long term to ensure 
a fair and efficient VA claims process. But in the meantime, I strongly 
believe the provisions in this bill represent a step in the right 
direction. I urge all of my Senate colleagues to support this bill and 
give it unanimous approval.
  So the bill (S. 1908), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                S. 1908

       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' Claims 
     Adjudication Improvement Act of 1994''.

                 TITLE I--STUDY OF CLAIMS ADJUDICATION

     SEC. 101. STUDY OF SYSTEM OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
                   FOR DISPOSITION OF CLAIMS FOR VETERANS 
                   BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrative Conference of the 
     United States shall carry out a study of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs system for the disposition of claims for 
     veterans benefits. The Administrative Conference shall carry 
     out the study in accordance with this title.
       (b) Purpose of Study.--The purpose of the study required 
     under this title shall be to evaluate the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs system for the disposition of claims for 
     veterans benefits in order to determine--
       (1) the efficiency of processes and procedures under the 
     system for the adjudication, resolution, review, and final 
     disposition of claims for veterans benefits and means of 
     increasing such efficiency, including the effect of judicial 
     review on such system;
       (2) means of reducing the number of claims under the system 
     for which final disposition is pending; and
       (3) means of enhancing the ability of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to dispose of claims under the system in a 
     prompt and appropriate manner.
       (c) Contents of Study.--The study of the Department of 
     Veterans Affair system for the disposition of claims for 
     veterans benefits under this title shall include an 
     evaluation and assessment of the following:
       (1) The historical development of the system, including the 
     effect on such development of the provision under the 
     Veterans' Judicial Review Act (division A of Public Law 100-
     687; 102 Stat. 4105) of authority for judicial review of 
     claims disposed of under the system.
       (2) The preparation and submission of claims by veterans 
     under the system.
       (3) The processes and procedures under the system for the 
     disposition of claims, including--
       (A) the scope and nature of the responsibility of the 
     Secretary to assist veterans in the development of claims;
       (B) the scope and nature of the hearings provided for at 
     each stage in the claims disposition process under the system 
     (including hearings de novo, hearings before travelling 
     members of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, hearings that are 
     expedited for reason of illness or financial need, and 
     hearings that permit the transmission of evidence or 
     testimony by electronic means);
       (C) the scope and nature of the review undertaken with 
     respect to a claim at each stage in the claims disposition 
     process;
       (D) the number, Federal employment grade, and experience 
     and qualifications required of the persons undertaking such 
     review at each such state;
       (E) the effect on such review of the obligation of the 
     Secretary to afford claimants with the benefit of the doubt 
     when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative 
     evidence with respect to a claim;
       (F) opportunities for the submittal of new evidence; and
       (G) the availability of alternative means of disposing of 
     claims.
       (4) The effect on the system of the participation of 
     attorneys, members of veterans service organizations, and 
     other advocates on behalf of veterans.
       (5) The effect on the system of actions taken by the 
     Secretary to modernize the information man agement system of 
     the Department, including the utilization of electronic 
     data management systems.
       (6) the effect on the system of any work performance 
     standards utilized by the Secretary at regional offices of 
     the Department and at the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
       (7) The extent of the implementation in the system of the 
     recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Claims Processing 
     submitted to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives on December 2, 1993, and 
     the effect of such implementation on the system.
       (8) The effectiveness in improving the system of any pilot 
     programs carried out by the Secretary at regional offices of 
     the Department and of efforts by the Secretary to implement 
     such programs throughout the system.
       (9) The effectiveness of the quality control practices and 
     quality assurance practices under the system in achieving the 
     goals of such practices.
       (d) Consultation With Non-Department Entities.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Administrative Conference of the United States shall, upon 
     request, provide opportunities in the conduct of the study 
     under this title for consultation with appropriate 
     representatives of veterans service organizations and of 
     other organizations and entities that represent veterans 
     before the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (e) Cooperation of Secretary.--(1) Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Administrative Conference of the United 
     States, and to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives, such information as the 
     Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall determine 
     necessary to carry out the study required under this title.
       (2) The information referred to in paragraph (1) shall 
     include information on the claims disposed of by the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs during the 5-year period 
     ending on September 30, 1993, including the following:
       (A) The total number of claims finally disposed of during 
     that period.
       (B) The number of claims finally disposed of during each 
     fiscal year of that period.
       (C) The number of claims referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     that were allowed by the Secretary solely on the basis of 
     information contained in the initial claim for benefits.
       (D) The number of claims referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     that were allowed by a regional office of the Department at 
     each of the various stages in the claims disposition process.
       (E) The number of claims referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     that were allowed by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
       (F) The number of claims referred to in subparagraph (E) 
     that were reopened after a final decision by the Board of 
     Veterans' Appeals.
       (f) Reports on Study.--(1) Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrative 
     Conference of the United States shall submit to the Secretary 
     and the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and 
     House of Representatives a preliminary report on the study 
     required under subsection (c). The report shall contain the 
     preliminary findings and conclusions of the Administrative 
     Conference with respect to the evaluation and assessment 
     required under the study.
       (2) Not alter than 18 months after such date, the 
     Administrative Conference shall submit to the Secretary and 
     to such committees a report on such study. The report shall 
     include the following:
       (A) The findings and conclusions of the Administrative 
     Conference, including its findings and conclusions with 
     respect to the matters referred to in subsection (c).
       (B) The recommendations of the Administrative Conference 
     for means of improving of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     system for the disposition of claims for veterans benefits.
       (C) Such other information and recommendations with respect 
     to the system as the Administrative Conference considers 
     appropriate.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $150,000 to the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs for payment to the Administrative Conference of the 
     United States under section 1535 of title 31, United States 
     Code, of the cost of carrying out the study and report 
     required under this title.
       (h) Definitions.--For the purposes of this title:
       (1) The term ``Administrative Conference of the United 
     States'' means the Administrative Conference provided for 
     under subchapter V of chapter 5 of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (2) The term ``Department of Veterans Affairs system for 
     the disposition of claims for veterans benefits'' means the 
     processes and procedures of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs for the adjudication, resolution, review, and final 
     disposition of claims for benefits under the laws 
     administered by the Secretary.
       (3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs.
       (4) The term ``veterans service organizations'' means any 
     organization approved by the Secretary under section 5902(a) 
     of title 38, United States Code.

             TITLE II--IMPROVEMENTS TO CLAIMS ADJUDICATION

     SEC. 201. ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL INCOME 
                   QUESTIONNAIRES.

       Section 1506 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``shall'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``may''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking out ``file a revised 
     report'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``notify the 
     Secretary''.

     SEC. 202. DOCUMENTS TO BE ACCEPTED AS PROOF OF RELATIONSHIPS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs shall accept from a claimant a photocopy 
     of an appropriate document as proof of the existence of a 
     marriage, the dissolution of a marriage, the birth of a 
     child, or the death of any family member for the purpose of 
     acting on such individual's claim for benefits under any law 
     administered by the Secretary. The Secretary may require the 
     submission of additional documentation in support of any 
     document submitted pursuant to this section if the document 
     on its face raises a question as to its validity, or there is 
     reasonable indication, in the document or otherwise, of fraud 
     or misrepresentation.

     SEC. 203. ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE PHYSICIAN EXAMINATIONS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of 
     establishing a claim for disability compensation under 
     chapter 11 of title 38, United States code, or a claim for 
     pension under chapter 15 of such title, a medical examination 
     report of a private physician provided by a claimant in 
     support of a claim for benefits may be accepted without 
     confirmation by an examination by a physician employed by the 
     Veterans Health Administration if such report contains 
     sufficient clinical data to support the diagnosis of a 
     disability or to provide a reliable basis for an evaluation 
     of the degree of any such disability.

     SEC. 204. TRANSFER OF MILITARY SERVICE MEDICAL RECORDS.

       Not later than 90 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 setting forth the status of an 
     agreement between the Secretary and the Secretary of Defense 
     to provide for the immediate transfer from the Department of 
     Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs of the medical 
     records of members of the Armed Forces upon the separation of 
     such members from active duty.

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 301. SERVICE CONNECTION FOR CERTAIN DISABILITIES 
                   RELATING TO EXPOSURE TO IONIZING RADIATION.

       Section 5 of the Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation Exposure 
     Compensation Standards Act (Public Law 98-542; 98 Stat. 2725; 
     38 U.S.C. 1154 note) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) The regulations prescribed under this section may not 
     prohibit, or be construed to prohibit, a veteran from 
     establishing pursuant to section 1110 or 1131 of title 38, 
     United States Code, service connection for a disease or 
     disability that the veteran claims to be the result of the 
     veterans' exposure to ionizing radiation during a period of 
     service referred to in subsection (a)(1), notwithstanding 
     that such regulation do not specify that the disease or 
     disability is a radiogenic disease.''.

     SEC. 302. ADJUDICATION AND RESOLUTION OF CERTAIN CLAIMS 
                   RELATING TO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.

       (a) Adjudication and Resolution of Claims.--The Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs shall--
       (1) take appropriate actions to determine whether the 
     injury (or aggravation of an injury) of any veteran as the 
     result of the treatment of the veteran was the result of 
     medical malpractice on the part of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs (and not of the veteran's own willful misconduct); 
     and
       (2) in the case of any injury so determined, provide 
     appropriate compensation to the veteran in accordance with 
     section 1151 of title 38, United States Code.
       (b) Statement of Intent and Construction.--Congress enacts 
     the requirement set forth in subsection (a) in order to 
     ensure the adjudication and resolution of certain claims 
     following the decision in Gardner v. Derwinksi, 1 Vet. App. 
     584 (1991), aff'd, sub nom. Brown v. Gardner, 5 F.3d 1456 
     (Fed. Cir. 1993), cert. granted, 62 U.S.L.W. 3657 (U.S. Apr. 
     4, 1994) (No. 93-1128). The requirement may not be construed 
     as an expression of Congressional intent to limit the claims 
     subject to adjudication under section 1151 of title 38, 
     United States Code, to claims related to injuries resulting 
     from medical malpractice.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``treatment'', in the case of a veteran, means 
     any examination, hospitalization, medical or surgical 
     treatment, or course of vocational rehabilitation under 
     chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code, that is provided 
     to the veteran by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (2) The term ``medical malpractice'' means any 
     carelessness, negligence, error in judgment, lack of proper 
     medical skill, or similar instance of indicated fault in the 
     treatment of a veteran.

                          ____________________