[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 66 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4972-S4979]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

       By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici and Mr. 
     Daschle):

  S. 1743. A bill to provide temporary emergency livestock feed 
assistance for certain producers, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


     The Temporary Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1996

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, my home State of New Mexico is currently 
experiencing a very severe drought, as is much of the Southwest. As 
with any drought, many of my State's citizens are experiencing severe 
hardships.
  Saturday, 2 days ago, I saw what fire had done to the Carson National 
Forest in my State. This is one of several major fires that New Mexico 
has experienced this year. The fire in the Carson National Forest was 
designated the Hondo fire. To date, over 20,000 acres have burned in 
our State. People have been burned out of their homes, Bandelier 
National Monument, Questa, Red River, NM, have all had their existence 
threatened, and the community of La Lama in northern New Mexico has 
been utterly destroyed.
  The size of these fires can be directly attributed to the lack of 
rain in our State for a very long period of time. And if the current 
weather conditions continue and no relief is in sight, the rest of this 
year will be tense and dangerous.
  Mr. President, I am here today to talk about another danger that is 
posed by this same lack of rain, and it is a threat to the finances and 
the livelihood of those who depend on the rain to make the grass that 
feeds their herds.
  The bill that I am introducing today along with my cosponsors, 
Senator Domenici and Senator Daschle, is entitled the ``Temporary 
Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1996.'' It is intended to 
help those ranchers who otherwise cannot afford to feed their cattle 
during this time of drought. With terrible range conditions, the 
options available to a rancher have become very limited.
  The rancher can either buy feed or he can sell the livestock that he 
owns at market prices. Neither option is very desirable at this time. 
Feed prices are extremely high, and cattle prices are the lowest that 
they have been for over a decade. The situation places the rancher in 
dire straits. In Lea County in southeastern New Mexico, ranchers 
usually budget about $125 to raise a cow. Now the cost has risen to 
about $250 to $300 per head because of the high cost of feed.
  In Curry County on the eastern side of New Mexico, the local paper 
reported that winter wheat crop faces an 80 to 90 percent loss. That 
crop is usually about 2.5 million bushels that are harvested. All parts 
of New Mexico are suffering. For the third year in a row, we have had 
less than our average rainfall in the northwest part of the State. Near 
Window Rock, AZ, we had 2.1 inches of precipitation during the period 
from October to March, the driest for that period since the year 1904. 
In the western part of our State, in Quay County, we have reported much 
less than average amounts of rainfall. In the south, Las Cruces usually 
receives about 8.5 inches a year, which I know would be a drought for 
most parts of the country even if we were to receive that, but for the 
past 3 years Las Cruces has consistently received less than that 
amount.

[[Page S4973]]

  This bill, this Temporary Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 
1996, is not meant to be a permanent solution to the current problem. 
The bill revives the livestock feed program for a 1-year period. That 
is 1996. The program was suspended in the recently enacted farm bill. 
Under the provisions of this act, those who raise cattle or sheep or 
goats would be eligible for assistance.
  Funding for the old program was through the Commodity Credit 
Corporation, and this bill changes that funding mechanism. It restricts 
the program to $18 million, specifically identifies a fund that already 
has 1996 appropriations dedicated to it.
  If market conditions remain, the funds that are targeted for use by 
this particular bill we are introducing today will otherwise remain 
unspent at the end of the fiscal year. So given the current crisis, it 
is clear to me that this money will be best utilized in helping the 
ranchers to survive the situation they face.
  Several provisions have been placed into the bill to ensure against 
abuses of the program. For example, a rancher will have to have owned 
or leased the livestock for at least 180 days. If the rancher has not 
owned or leased the livestock for the required time, there are certain 
exceptions that the Secretary of Agriculture will have to approve. This 
will ensure that additional livestock are not purchased for the sole 
purpose of benefiting from this program we are proposing to enact.
  Also, there is language that allows the Secretary to determine the 
quantities of forage sufficient to maintain livestock, based on the 
normal carrying capacity of the land. This language is intended to 
discourage a person from overstocking the land above the carrying 
capacity and receiving assistance for that effort. This will help to 
ensure that long-term damage to the land does not occur.
  Another important provision concerns the commodities reserve program. 
The bill asks the Secretary to examine using the Department's millions 
of bushels of stored grain for the emergency that we now face. The 
Secretary is asked to report back to Congress within 30 days of 
enactment of this bill. If the reserve can be used, the ranchers will 
be able to receive grain at lower than market prices.

  After examining the facts, I am confident that my colleagues here in 
Congress will agree that the current emergency situation demands 
immediate action. This legislation extends the program--for only 1 
year--that was suspended permanently by the farm bill. Consistently in 
times of need, the rancher has turned to this program. Clearly, 
ranchers are in need of this program one more time.
  The reintroduction of this program will not dramatically alter the 
budget that was agreed upon in the farm bill. Instead, this legislation 
will spend funds that have already been appropriated for fiscal year 
1996 and in all likelihood will go unspent this year if this bill is 
not enacted.
  Mr. President, a former Member of this Senate and a former President, 
Harry Truman, used to state that the facts should determine the 
conclusion that we reach. In this matter, the severe conditions of the 
drought warrant immediate action by Congress. I urge serious 
consideration of this legislation and expeditious passage of this 
legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1744. A bill to permit duty free treatment for certain structures, 
parts, and components used in the Gemini telescope project; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                the gemini telescope project act of 1996

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
is of great importance to the entire international scientific community 
and to the State of Hawaii. This legislation grants tariff relief to 
the Gemini project, an international astronomical project.
  The Gemini project, which is run by the Association of Universities 
for Research in Astronomy [AURA] on behalf of the National Science 
Foundation [NSF] and several foreign nations, consists of two 8-meter 
optical telescopes to be constructed over the next few years on Mauna 
Kea, HI, and on Cerro Pachon, Chile.
  AURA is a private, nonprofit consortium of United States and foreign 
affiliated education and other nonprofit institutions that operate 
several world-class astronomical observatories throughout the world. 
The Gemini project is an international partnership and draws funding 
from the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, 
Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. Fifty percent of the project's cost is 
borne by the United States and 50 percent by the project's foreign 
partners.
  Because of the international cooperation involved in the Gemini 
project, the specific partner countries have been assigned work 
packages and bids for components of the telescope have been requested 
from both United States and international suppliers. For example, 
Corning Glass Works in New York produced the 8-meter mirrors required 
for the telescopes and then shipped them to France for polishing. Once 
this polishing is completed, the mirrors will be sent to Hawaii for 
installation.
  Gemini's international cooperation is a model for major scientific 
projects in the future. We all realize that we must reduce the Federal 
deficit, and that will mean belt-tightening across Government. The 
Gemini model offers an innovative way to do significant scientific 
research in such a climate because the United States and its 
international partners share the cost of construction, and, in turn, 
benefit by shared use of the telescopes once they are constructed.
  However, this international cooperation has presented a problem for 
AURA. Although all non-U.S. partner countries have already waived all 
taxes and duties related to the Gemini project, the U.S. Customs 
Service has initially ruled that the mirror is subject to duties upon 
reentry into the United States. The Customs Service classifies the 
mirror as a component of the telescope. This initial ruling appears to 
negate the terms of the ``Florence Agreement,'' an international trade 
agreement from the 1950's which permits scientific instruments duty-
free entry when used by a nonprofit organization.
  The customs duties for the importation of all Gemini project, 
components basically means that one Federal Government agency--the 
NSF--will end up paying another Federal Government agency--the U.S. 
Customs Service--for an import duty which, I believe, clearly violates 
the terms of the ``Florence Agreement.''
  Not only will the Customs Service's tariff ruling cause a problem 
with cost and schedule for the Gemini project, but it will also 
threaten future international scientific collaborations because of the 
potential problem it poses to such a project's cost. It would appear 
that as these international partnerships become more crucial in this 
era of ever-tightening budgets, the Customs Service's position will 
undermine the viability of these kinds of scientific arrangements.
   Mr. President, I am pleased to advise my colleagues that there is a 
strong precedent for the Congress to enact legislation that would 
provide relief for the Gemini project. In the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988--Public Law 100-418, the Congress agreed 
with the same arguments I have described here today and provided tariff 
relief for the W.M. Keck Observatory project administered by the 
California Association for Research in Astronomy. This legislation is 
comparable in scope to the 1988 provision, except for the fact that the 
Keck Observatory was a privately funded telescope whereas the Gemini 
project carries an official designation as a U.S.-owned and operated 
facility.
  Time is critical to the successful completion of the Gemini project. 
Key components of the telescope are scheduled for arrival in the United 
States early next year, and it does not appear that the U.S. Customs 
Service will provide any specific relief for the Gemini project. As a 
result, this legislation is vital to avoiding serious cost or schedule 
disruption to the Gemini Program.
  I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to take up this 
important legislation at the earliest possible opportunity so that the 
Gemini project may proceed on schedule and within budget.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page S4974]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1744

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

     SECTION 1. CERTAIN STRUCTURES, PARTS AND COMPONENTS USED IN 
                   THE GEMINI TELESCOPES PROJECT, MAUNA KEA, 
                   HAWAII.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury is 
     authorized and directed to admit free of duty after March 31, 
     1997, the following articles for the use of the Association 
     of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. in the 
     construction of the Gemini North Telescope, Mauna Kea, 
     Hawaii, as part of the international Gemini 8-Meter 
     Telescopes Project:
       (1) The telescope enclosure, produced by Coast Steel 
     Fabricators, Ltd., Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada.
       (2) The telescope structure assemblies, produced by G.I.E. 
     Telas, Cannes le Bocca, France.
       (3) The telescope mirror coating plant, produced by the 
     Royal Greenwich Observatories, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
       (4) The telescope primary mirror, polished by REOSC, Saint-
     Pierre-du-Perray, France.
       (5) The telescope secondary mirror, produced by Carl Zeiss, 
     Oberkochen, Germany.
       (6) The telescope acquisition, guiding, and wavefront 
     sensing equipment, produced by the Royal Greenwich 
     Observatories, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
       (b) Reliquidation.--If the liquidation of the entry of any 
     article described in subsection (a) has become final before 
     April 1, 1997, the entry shall, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, be reliquidated on April 1, 1997, in 
     accordance with the provisions of this section and the 
     appropriate refund of duty made at time of such 
     reliquidation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMPSON (by request):
  S. 1748. A bill to permit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
reorganize the Veterans Health Administration notwithstanding the 
notice and wait requirements of section 510 of title 38, United States 
Code, and to amend title 38, United States Code, to facilitate the 
organization of the headquarters of the Veterans Health Administration; 
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                         VETERANS' LEGISLATION

 Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1748, a bill to facilitate the 
reorganization of the headquarters of the Veterans Health 
Administration [VHA], Department of Veterans Affairs. The Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the 
Senate by letter dated June 22, 1995. That letter was referred to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs on July 20, 1995.
  This measure, Mr. President, also requests that the Congress 
authorize a VHA reorganization notwithstanding the notice and wait 
provisions of section 510 of title 38, United States Code. By the time 
that this request had been referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, July 20, 1995, the waiting period specified under section 510 
of title 38, United States Code, had nearly expired and, thus, those 
provisions were, for practical purposes, moot at the time the committee 
received this request. Nonetheless, I have introduced this bill in its 
entirety today since it contains provisions which are not related 
directly to the reorganization which is now being implemented.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the 
enclosed analysis of the draft legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1748

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act 
     an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment to 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.
       Sec. 2. (a) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may proceed 
     with the reorganization described in subsection (b) of this 
     section without regard to section 510 of title 38, United 
     States Code.
       (b) The administrative reorganization referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the reorganization of the Veterans Health 
     Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs as that 
     reorganization and related activity are described in a letter 
     dated March 17, 1995, and the detailed plan and justification 
     enclosed therewith, submitted by the Secretary to the 
     Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives pursuant to section 510 of title 38, 
     United States Code.
       Sec. 3. Section 7305 is amended to read as follows:
       ``The Veterans Health Administration shall include the 
     Office of the Under Secretary for Health and such 
     professional and auxiliary services as the Secretary may find 
     to be necessary to carry out the functions of the 
     Administration.''.
       Sec. 4. Section 7306 is amended--
       (a) in subsection (a)--
       (1) by striking ``and who shall be a qualified doctor of 
     medicine'' in paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and redesignating 
     paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) as paragraphs (5), (6), and (7).
       (b) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Of the Assistant Under Secretaries for Health 
     appointed under subsection (a)(3), not more than two may be 
     persons qualified in the administration of health services 
     who are not doctors of medicine, dental surgery, or dental 
     medicines.''.
                                                                    ____



                            The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

                                        Washington, June 22, 1995.
     Hon. Al Gore,
     President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: There is transmitted herewith a draft 
     bill, ``To permit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
     reorganize the Veterans Health Administration notwithstanding 
     the notice and wait requirements of section 510 of title 38, 
     United States Code, and to amend title 38, United States 
     Code, to facilitate the reorganization of the headquarters of 
     the Veterans Health Administration.'' We request that it be 
     referred to the appropriate committee for prompt 
     consideration and enactment.
       The draft bill contains several provisions intended to 
     assist VA in its reorganization of the Veterans Health 
     Administration (VHA). The first provision would waive the 
     waiting period otherwise required by 38 U.S.C. Sec. 510 for 
     the planned VHA reorganization which the Department reported 
     to its oversight committees on March 17, 1995. Enactment 
     would permit the Department to begin implementing the 
     reorganization immediately, and would assist the Under 
     Secretary for Health to more rapidly achieve the improvements 
     and advantages of that plan, as discussed extensively in our 
     report. By sending a signal of Congressional support for this 
     new direction for the VA health-care system, enactment would 
     give strong impetus to implementation of the plan, and would 
     assist the Under Secretary to achieve the ``culture change'' 
     within VHA which is essential to fully realize its benefits.
       The other provisions in the draft bill are aimed at 
     facilitating the reorganization of VHA's headquarters. The 
     current centralized management model for VHA, which is in 
     part required by statute, impedes the system's ability to 
     adapt to the rapidly changing health-care environment. The 
     statutory structure limits the Department's flexibility to 
     establish functions and offices in the 
     organizational structure that are most necessary, and that 
     are located in the geographic setting that best supports 
     the goals of the health-care system.
       To enhance organizational flexibility in VHA headquarters, 
     the draft bill would eliminate the statutory requirement that 
     VHA have a centralized Medical Service, Dental Service, 
     Podiatric Service, Optometric Service, and Nursing Service. 
     It would also eliminate a legal requirement that VHA have 
     Directors for each of those services. The bill would 
     additionally eliminate statutory requirements that VHA have 
     an Assistant Under Secretary for Health who is a dentist, and 
     an Assistant Under Secretary for Health with expertise and 
     training in geriatrics. The Department does not plan to 
     eliminate the functions of those offices and positions. 
     Rather, the Department seeks the flexibility to determine 
     which office and which position in the organization can best 
     provide management direction to assure that those functions 
     are appropriately carried out.
       As a final matter, the draft bill would eliminate the 
     requirement that the Associate Deputy Under Secretary for 
     Health be a doctor of medicine. That change would provide the 
     Veterans Health Administration with greater management 
     flexibility by allowing the appointment to that position of 
     an individual whose training and experience may be primarily 
     in management, budgeting, or some other administrative area, 
     rather than in medicine.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program to the submission of this legislative proposal to the 
     Congress.
           Sincerely yours,
     Jesse Brown.
                                                                    ____


                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       Section 2 would waive the notice and wait requirements of 
     38 U.S.C. Sec. 510 with respect

[[Page S4975]]

     to an administrative reorganization of the Veterans Health 
     Administration. The reorganization is one described in a 
     letter dated March 17, 1995, and the detailed plan and 
     justification enclosed therewith, submitted by the Secretary 
     to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives pursuant to section 510 of title 38, 
     United States Code.
       Section 3 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7305 to delete the 
     current statutory requirement that the Veterans Health 
     Administration include a centralized Medical Service, Dental 
     Service, Podiatric Service, Optometric Service, and Nursing 
     Service. It would provide the Administration with greater 
     flexibility to provide the functions those services now 
     provide in the most appropriate setting and geographic 
     location.
       Section 4 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7306. It would first 
     eliminate the legal requirement that the Veterans Health 
     Administration have Directors for each of the services 
     deleted from 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7305 by section 3 of the draft 
     bill. Section 4 would also eliminate a requirement in section 
     7306 that the Veterans Health Administration have an 
     Assistant Under Secretary for Health who is a dentist, and an 
     Assistant Under Secretary for Health with expertise and 
     training in geriatrics. Finally, section 4 would delete the 
     requirement in section 7306 that the Associate Deputy Under 
     Secretary for Health be a doctor of medicine. The proposed 
     amendments would all facilitate reorganization of the 
     headquarters of the Veterans Health Administration.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMPSON (by request):
  S. 1749. A bill to amend title 38, sections 8101(2) and 
8109(h)(3)(B), United States Code, to delete the references therein to 
``working drawings'' and substitute therefor the words ``construction 
documents,'' and to further delete the references therein to 
``preliminary plans'' and to substitute therefor the words ``design 
development.''; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                         veterans' legislation

 Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1749, a bill to amend certain 
provisions of title 38, United States Code, first, to delete references 
to ``working drawings'' and substitute therefor the words 
``construction documents;'' and second, to delete references to 
``preliminary plans'' and substitute therefor the words ``design 
development.'' The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this 
legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated September 
18, 1995.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the 
enclosed analysis of the draft legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1749

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     section 8101(2) and section 8109(h)(3)(B) of title 38, United 
     States Code, are amended--
       Sec. 2. By striking the words ``working drawings'' each 
     time they appear and to substitute therefor in each instance 
     the words ``construction documents.''
       Sec. 3. By striking the words ``preliminary plans'' each 
     time they appear to substitute therefor in each instance the 
     words ``design development.''
                                                                    ____

                                                  The Secretary of


                                             Veterans Affairs,

                                   Washington, September 18, 1995.
     Hon. Albert Gore,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: There is transmitted herewith a draft 
     bill, ``To amend title 38, sections 8101(2) and 
     8109(h)(3)(B), United States Code, to delete the references 
     therein to ``working drawings'' and substitute therefor the 
     words ``construction documents,'' and to further delete the 
     references therein to ``preliminary plans'' and to substitute 
     therefor the words ``design development.'' It is requested 
     that the bill be referred to the appropriate committee and 
     that it be favorably considered for enactment.
       This draft bill would simply change terminology used in 
     reference to design activities to bring the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs in line with the terminology used in the 
     private design and construction industry. These proposed 
     changes are a result of the Department's Office of 
     Construction Management's restructuring its design activities 
     to follow those used by private industry.
       This proposal will not result in any additional costs to, 
     or savings for, the Department. The requested changes will 
     result only in greater uniformity of construction project 
     terminology between the Department and private industry.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program to the submission of this legislative proposal to the 
     Congress.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                      Jesse Brown.
       Enclosures.
                                                                    ____


                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       Section 1 of the draft bill provides that section 8101(2) 
     and section 8109(h)(3)(B) of title 38 shall be amended.
       Section 2 of the draft bill would change the design 
     document references in sections 8101(2) and 8109(h)(3)(B), 
     from ``working drawings'' to ``construction documents.'' 
     Enactment of this change would represent a terminology change 
     only, which would result in terminology used within the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs paralleling that used within 
     the private design industry.
       Section 3 of the draft bill would change the design 
     document references in section 8101(2) from ``preliminary 
     plans'' to ``design development.'' Enactment of this change 
     would represent a terminology change only, which would result 
     in terminology used within the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     paralleling that used within the private design 
     industry.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMPSON (by request):
  S. 1750. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to modify 
disbursement agreement authority to include residents and interns 
serving in any Department facility providing hospital care or medical 
services; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                         veterans' legislation

 Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1750, a bill to modify the 
disbursement agreement authority to the Department of Veterans Affairs 
[VA] to include residents and interns who are serving in any VA 
facility providing hospital care or medical services. The Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the 
Senate by letter dated September 26, 1995.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the 
enclosed analysis of the draft legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1750

       Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 
     assembled, That except as otherwise expressly provided, 
     whenever in this Act an amendment is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to 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.
       Sec. 2. Section 7406(c) is amended--
       (a) by striking ``Department hospital'' wherever it appears 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``Department facility 
     furnishing hospital care or medical services''.
       (b) in paragraph 4(C) by striking ``hospital'' after 
     ``participating'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``facility''.
       (c) in paragraph 5 by striking ``hospital'' both places it 
     appears and inserting in lieu thereof ``facility''.
                                                                    ____



                               Department of Veterans Affairs,

                                               September 26, 1995.
     The Honorable Al Gore,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: There is transmitted herewith a draft 
     bill, ``To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify 
     disbursement agreement authority to include residents and 
     intense serving in any Department facility providing hospital 
     care or medical services.'' We request that it be referred to 
     the appropriate committee for prompt consideration and 
     enactment.
       Typically, residents and interns are trained at a number of 
     medical institutions and each institution is individually 
     responsible for paying the residents and interns

[[Page S4976]]

     serving there. As a result, residents and interns often 
     receive differing levels of pay and fringe benefits from 
     institution to institution, which sometimes creates confusion 
     and morale problems. Under disbursement agreements, medical 
     institutions that participate in training residents and 
     interns designate one institution to pay all residents and 
     interns a set amount. Thus, pay and fringe benefits do not 
     change when residents and interns rotate among participating 
     institutions.
       The enclosed draft bill would authorize VA to enter into 
     disbursement agreements with participating medical 
     institutions for the centralized administration of pay and 
     other employee benefits to residents and interns training at 
     any Department facility providing hospital care or medical 
     services. Section 7406(c) of title 38, United States Code, 
     currently provides for such agreements only ``for the period 
     that such intern or resident serves in a Department 
     hospital.'' The law does not authorize VA to enter into such 
     agreements to provide pay and fringe benefits for residents 
     and interns serving in VA outpatient clinics, nursing homes 
     or other VA medical facilities.
       This draft bill would allow VA facilities which are not 
     hospitals, such as outpatient clinics and nursing homes, to 
     receive the cost saving and other benefits provided by 
     disbursement agreements. These facilities are an increasingly 
     important component of the VA health care delivery system. 
     With greater emphasis being placed on primary care, the 
     training of residents and interns takes place in nonhospital 
     settings such as outpatient clinics and nursing homes. This 
     draft bill is particularly important in the case of two of 
     our hospitals in California (Martinez and Sepulveda) which, 
     due to earthquakes, have been modified into clinics. Both 
     facilities have had long-standing academic affiliates and 
     residency training programs with disbursement agreements. 
     There are not costs to VA associated with this draft bill.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program to the submission of this legislative proposal to the 
     Congress.
       Sincerely yours,
     Jesse Brown.
                                                                    ____


                       Analysis of Proposed Bill

       The bill would expand VA authority to enter into 
     disbursement agreements with participating medical 
     institutions for the central administration of pay and other 
     employee benefits for residents and interns who train at 
     Department facilities. Currently, the law authorizes the use 
     of disbursement agreements only for residents and interns 
     serving in Department hospitals, but not those serving in 
     outpatient clinics, nursing homes or other Department medical 
     facilities. The bill would eliminate this restriction and 
     provide authority for VA to enter into disbursement 
     agreements for the central administration of pay and other 
     employee benefits for interns and residents serving in any 
     Department facility providing hospital care or medical 
     services, including outpatient clinics and nursing 
     homes.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMPSON (by request):
  S. 1751. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the 
procedures for providing claimants and their representatives with 
copies of Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions and to protect the right 
of claimants to appoint veterans' service organizations as their 
representatives in claims before the Department of Veterans Affairs; to 
the Committee on Veterans Affairs''.


                         veterans' legislation

 Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1751, a bill to revise the procedures 
for providing claimants and their representatives with copies of Board 
of Veterans' Appeals decisions and to protect the right of claimants to 
appoint veterans service organizations as their representatives in 
claims before the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the 
Senate by letter dated October 11, 1995.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1751

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

     SECTION 1. PROVISION OF COPIES OF BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS 
                   DECISIONS.

       (a) Providing the Decisions.--Section 7104(e) of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking out ``mail'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``send''; and
       (2) adding at the end of that subsection the following:

     ``For the purposes of this subsection, the Board may send a 
     copy of its written decision by any means reasonably 
     calculated to provide the claimant and the claimant's 
     authorized representative (if any) with a copy of the 
     decision within the same time a copy of the decision sent by 
     first-class mail would be expected to reach them.''.
       (b) Beginning of the Appeal Period.--Section 7266(a)(1) of 
     title 38, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking out ``person'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``claimant'';
       (2) striking out ``mailed'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``sent''; and
       (3) inserting ``to the claimant's authorized representative 
     or, if none, to the claimant'' following ``title''.

     SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF A VETERANS SERVICE ORGANIZATION AS A 
                   CLAIMANT'S REPRESENTATIVE.

       (a) Power of Attorney Naming a Veterans Service 
     Organization.--Section 5902 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is amended by--
       (1) redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) inserting the following new subsection (c):
       ``(c)(1) Unless a claimant specifically indicates his or 
     her desire to appoint only a recognized representative of an 
     organization listed in or approved under subsection (a) of 
     this section, the Secretary may, for any purpose, treat a 
     claimant's power of attorney naming such an organization, a 
     specific office of such an organization, or a recognized 
     representative of such an organization as an appointment of 
     the entire organization.
       ``(2) Whenever the Secretary is required or permitted to 
     notify a claimant's representative, and the claimant has 
     named in a power of attorney an organization listed in or 
     approved under subsection (a) of this section, a specific 
     office of such an organization, or a recognized 
     representative of such an organization without specifically 
     indicating a desire to appoint only a recognized 
     representative of the organization, the Secretary shall 
     notify the organization at the address designated by the 
     organization for the purpose of receiving each kind of 
     notification.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to any power of attorney filed with the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs regardless of the date of its execution.
                                                                    ____



                            The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

                                     Washington, October 11, 1995.
     Hon. Albert Gore,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Transmitted herewith is a draft bill to 
     amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the procedures 
     for providing claimants and their representatives with copies 
     of Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decisions and to 
     protect the right of claimants to appoint veterans service 
     organizations as their representatives in claims before the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This legislation would 
     permit the Board to provide copies of its appellate decisions 
     to claimants' representatives reasonably and efficiently. It 
     would also permit VA to continue a longstanding method of 
     claimant representation which has proven efficient and 
     beneficial to claimants. I request that this draft bill be 
     referred to the appropriate committee for prompt 
     consideration and enactment.


                 provision of copies of board decisions

       Section 7104(e) of title 38, United States Code, specifies 
     that ``the Board shall promptly mail a copy of its written 
     decision to the claimant and the claimant's authorized 
     representative (if any).'' In the past, the Board's method of 
     representative (if any).'' In the past, the Board's method of 
     ``mailing'' a copy of a decision to a representative depended 
     on where the representative was located. For a representative 
     at the Board's offices in Washington, D.C., a contractor 
     hand-delivered the Board decision to the representative. For 
     a representative at a VA regional office, the Board gave the 
     decision to the contractor, who ``bundled'' mail for the 58 
     VA regional offices and delivered the bundles to the United 
     States Postal Service. After the United States Postal Service 
     delivered the bundles to the VA regional offices, each 
     regional office sorted its bundled mail and distributed any 
     Board decision to the appropriate representative at that 
     regional office. For a representative not at an office at a 
     VA facility, the Board mailed its decision directly to the 
     representative.
       This past practice made sense considering the number of 
     Board decisions and the number of representatives who have 
     offices at VA facilities. The Board decides more than 25,000 
     cases per year. In more than 85 percent of those cases, one 
     of the various veterans service organizations represents the 
     claimant. Often, as authorized by 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5902(a)(2), 
     the service organization occupies free office space in either 
     a VA regional office or at the Board's offices in Washington, 
     D.C. Thus, the

[[Page S4977]]

     Board's past practice of distributing decisions to 
     representatives was flexible and efficient.
       This past practice, however, was invalidated by the Court 
     of Veterans Appeals. In Trammell v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 181 
     (1994), the Court of Veterans Appeals held that an apparently 
     late notice of appeal was timely filed because the Board's 
     decision-distribution procedure did not accord with 38 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 7104(e). In Davis v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 298 (1995), the 
     court held that the phrase ``the Board shall promptly mail'' 
     in section 7104(e) means that the Board decision ``must be 
     correctly addressed, stamped with the proper postage, and 
     delivered directly by the [Board] into the custody of the 
     U.S. Postal Service.'' Id. at 303. The court then concluded 
     that the apparently late notice of appeal in Davis was timely 
     filed. Id. at 304.
       The court's interpretation of section 7104(e) creates 
     problems with logistical solutions the Board has developed 
     over the years to provide representatives with copies of its 
     decisions. Indeed, it leads to some absurd results. For 
     example, instead of a Board employee (or a contractor) simply 
     walking down the hall to deliver a Board decision to a 
     service organization representative on the same floor, now 
     the employee, not a contractor, must place the decision in an 
     envelope, affix proper postage, and deliver it directly into 
     the United States Postal Service's custody. We understand 
     that the Postal Service takes this mail to Maryland for 
     sorting, then returns it to the District of Columbia for 
     delivery. The Postal Service delivers VA mail to the VA 
     building across the street from the Board's offices, where a 
     contractor sorts it for international delivery. The 
     contractor must then carry the Board decision across the 
     street to the building housing the Board and the service 
     organization representative and deliver it to the 
     representative.
       The Board should be permitted to provide representatives 
     with copies of its decisions sensibly. Thus, we propose this 
     legislation to permit the Board to ``send'' its decisions to 
     claimants and their representatives by any means reasonably 
     calculated to provide them with a copy of the decision within 
     the same time a copy of the decision sent by first-class mail 
     would be expected to reach them.
       Section 1(b) of this draft bill would also make a 
     corresponding change to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7266(a)(1), which 
     currently provides that, to obtain review by the Court of 
     Veterans Appeals, a person adversely affected by a final 
     Board decision must file a notice of appeal within 120 days 
     after the date on which notice of the decision is mailed 
     pursuant to section 7104(e). Our proposed amendment would 
     require that a notice of appeal be filed within 120 days 
     after the date on which notice of the Board decision is sent 
     pursuant to section 7104(e) to the representative or, if 
     none, to the claimant.


    appointment of a veterans service organization as a claimant's 
                             representative

       Current law authorizes the Secretary to recognize 
     individuals to prepare, present, and prosecute claims for VA 
     benefits on behalf of claimants. Section 5904(a) of title 38, 
     United States Code, authorizes the Secretary to recognize any 
     individual as an agent or attorney for the preparation, 
     presentation, and prosecution of VA benefit claims. Section 
     5903 of title 38, United States Code, authorizes the 
     Secretary to recognize any individual for the preparation, 
     presentation, and prosecution of any particular VA benefit 
     claim. In addition, section 5902(a)(1) of title 38, United 
     States Code, authorizes the Secretary to recognize 
     representatives of certain veterans service organizations in 
     the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of VA benefit 
     claims.
       With respect to representatives of veterans service 
     organizations, VA's policy and practice has been to recognize 
     any accredited representative of an approved service 
     organization if a claimant files a power of attorney in favor 
     of the organization itself, a specific office of the 
     organization, or a particular representative of the 
     organization. This practice affords several advantages. 
     First, it allows different representatives of an organization 
     to handle a particular claim at different stages of the 
     claim, without the claimant having to file a separate power 
     of attorney for each representative. For example, a 
     representative of an organization at a VA field office can 
     prosecute a claim there and initiate an appeal. Another 
     representative of the same organization at the organization's 
     national office can then argue the claim on appeal before the 
     Board in Washington, D.C. Second, it allows different 
     representatives of the organization to handle a particular 
     claim at different locations and times, without the claimant 
     having to file another power of attorney. For example, if a 
     claimant moves from New York to Los Angeles while his or her 
     claim is pending, a representative of an organization at a 
     local office in New York can initially handle the claim 
     there, and another representative of the organization at a 
     local office in Los Angeles can subsequently pursue the claim 
     at the location. Similarly, a second representative of an 
     organization can assume responsibility for the prosecution of 
     a claim if the original representative of that organization 
     moves, becomes incapacitated, or leaves the organization. 
     Third, the practice allows VA to notify a claimant's 
     representative in a manner best suited to assure notice is 
     received. For example, the Board can mail a copy of its 
     decision to a representative of a given organization in 
     Washington, D.C., as well as to a local representative at a 
     field station, thereby doubling the likelihood that the 
     claimant's representative will actually receive notice.
       Cases pending before or recently decided by the Court of 
     Veterans Appeals are imperiling VA's longstanding practice of 
     recognizing any accredited representative of a veterans 
     service organization in a particular claim. In Leo v. Brown, 
     U.S. Vet. App. No. 93-844 (June 16, 1995), the court again 
     held that an apparently late notice of appeal was timely 
     filed because the Board's decision-distribution procedure did 
     not accord with 39 U.S.C. Sec. 7104(e). In this case, the 
     claimant executed a power of attorney in which, in the 
     space for designation of a representative, he entered the 
     American Legion and the address of the Greenville, South 
     Carolina, Veterans Affairs Office, where the American 
     Legion had a local representative. The Greenville office 
     stated that it had no record of having received a copy of 
     the Board's decision on the veteran's claim. The court 
     ruled that actual receipt of a copy of the decision by the 
     American Legion's national office in Washington, D.C., did 
     not cure the failure to mail a copy to the claimant's 
     designated representative, ``i.e., the Greenville, South 
     Carolina, office.''
       Based on inquiries from the court in cases currently 
     pending, we are concerned that the court may go further and 
     hold that, based on the plain meaning of 38 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 5902(A)(1), a claimant may appoint only an individual, 
     not an organization, to prepare, present, and prosecute a 
     claim before VA on the claimant's behalf. Such a holding 
     would play havoc with the traditional role of veterans 
     service organizations in the claim process and inject 
     additional technical demands into that process. If a claimant 
     could appoint only an individual, the claimant would have to 
     file another power of attorney each time it became necessary 
     or expedient for another accredited representative to assist 
     with his or her claim. VA could not allow another 
     representative of the same organization access to the 
     claimant's files or mail another representative a copy of a 
     Board decision without risking violation of the Privacy Act. 
     Under the Leo decision, similar problems would frequently 
     arise in the cases of claimants who designate a particular 
     office of an organization on their power-of-attorney forms.
       A recent survey at the Board showed that 79 percent of 
     appellants who designated a veterans service organization on 
     their power-of-attorney form (which, as noted above, occurs 
     in more than 85 percent of the 25,000 cases that pass through 
     the Board each year) designated only the organization, not a 
     specific office or an individual representative of the 
     organization. Thus, if the court were to invalidate VA's 
     practice of recognizing organizations rather than 
     individuals, it would cast doubt on the validity and meaning 
     of nearly 16,800 powers of attorney in cases coming before 
     the Board alone over one year. It would delay decisions on 
     numerous claims while VA tried to clarify what individual 
     representative, if any, each appellant wanted to represent 
     him or her.
       The impact on the Compensation and Pension Service (C&P) 
     would be even greater. Last year, C&P completed action on 
     2,127,265 compensation and pension claims. As of December 31, 
     1994, national veterans service organizations represented 
     approximately 36 percent of the beneficiaries receiving 
     monthly compensation or pension payments from C&P. It would 
     be fair to conclude that veterans service organizations 
     represented approximately 36 percent of the compensation or 
     pension claimants whose cases were handled in 1994. Although 
     C&P does not have statistics on the number of claimants who 
     designate only an organization (as opposed to a specific 
     office or recognized representative of an organization), let 
     us assume that, as at the Board, approximately 79 percent of 
     claimants represented by service organizations designated 
     only an organization on their powers of attorney. Thus, an 
     ``individuals only'' holding by the court would cast doubt on 
     the validity and meaning of nearly 605,000 powers of attorney 
     coming before C&P during one year.
       An ``individuals only'' rule would require extensive and 
     costly reprogramming of the Veterans Benefits 
     Administration's (VBA) automated data processing system and 
     greatly increase VBA's annual postage costs. In connection 
     with claim development, award notification, and routine 
     communications concerning awards, VBA's regional offices 
     annually produce more than 3 million letters for veterans 
     service organizations representing claimants or 
     beneficiaries. Currently, the Hines, Illinois, computer 
     center prepares and mails one copy of each letter to the 
     claimant or beneficiary and ships three copies to the 
     appropriate regional office, where one copy is filed in the 
     claim folder and two are delivered through internal mail to 
     the organization. If required to notify individual 
     representatives of organizations by mail, VBA would have to 
     reprogram the computer system and, most likely, mail the 
     representatives' copies from Hines. Postage costs alone could 
     approach $1 million annually. We think that such a 
     procedure would waste limited resources, particularly 
     since the current procedure provides an efficient means of 
     notifying organizations.
       An ``individuals only'' rule would also probably force VBA 
     to curtail or eliminate veterans service organizations' 
     access to veterans' computer records. Currently, an 
     accredited representative of an organization may access the 
     records of any veteran represented by that organization. 
     Under an ``individuals only'' system, however, VBA would

[[Page S4978]]

     have to restrict a representative's access to only the files 
     of those veterans whose powers of attorney designate that 
     representative. The cost of establishing appropriate security 
     for the computer files in a system that includes over 6,000 
     individual representatives would probably be too great to 
     justify continued access to the records. The Board would also 
     face a similar problem with access it provides veterans 
     service organizations to its computer records.
       Section 2 of the draft bill would address these problems. 
     Section 2(a) would authorize the Secretary to treat a power 
     of attorney naming an organization, a specific office of an 
     organization, or a recognized representative of an 
     organization as an appointment of the entire organization, 
     unless the claimant specifically indicated his or her desire 
     to appoint only a recognized representative of the 
     organization. Under this amendment, whether a claimant's 
     power of attorney is executed in favor of an approved 
     organization, a local office of that organization, or an 
     individual representative of the organization, the claimant 
     could rest assured of the assistance of an accredited 
     representative of the organization at every stage of the 
     claim or appeal before VA, regardless of location or the 
     inability of a particular individual to continue 
     representation, without having to file additional powers of 
     attorney.
       Section 2(a) of the draft bill would also require the 
     Secretary, when required or permitted to notify a claimant's 
     representative, and when the claimant has in effect appointed 
     a veterans service organization as representative, to notify 
     the organization at the address designated by the 
     organization for the purpose of receiving each kind of 
     notification.
       Under section 2(b) of the draft bill, the amendments made 
     by section 2(a) would apply to any power of attorney filed 
     with VA regardless of the date of its execution.


                           costs and savings

       We estimate that the savings from enactment of the 
     provision authorizing the sending of Board decisions would be 
     insignificant, i.e., administrative savings of less than 
     $100,000 per year. Depending on how the Court of Veterans 
     Appeals interprets current 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5902(a), enactment 
     of the provision regarding the appointment of veterans 
     service organizations as claimants' representatives could 
     result in cost avoidance in excess of $1 million annually.
       We have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget 
     that there is no objection to the submission of this draft 
     bill to Congress from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program.
           Sincerely yours,

                                              Jesse Brown.

                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMPSON (by request):
  S. 1752. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to exempt 
full-time registered nurses, physician assistants, and expanded-
function dental auxiliaries from restrictions on remunerated outside 
professional activities; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                         veterans' legislation

 Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1752, a bill to amend certain 
provisions of title 38, United States Code, to exempt full-time 
registered nurses, physician assistants, and expanded-function dental 
auxiliaries from restrictions on remunerated outside professional 
activities. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this 
legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated February 21, 
1996.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the 
enclosed analysis of the draft legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1752

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act 
     an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment to 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.
       Sec. 2. Section 7423 is amended--
       (a) in subsection (b) by striking paragraph (1) and 
     redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) as 
     paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5);
       (b) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g); and
       (b) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection (c):
       ``(c) A physician, dentist, podiatrist, or optometrist 
     appointed as a full-time employee under this title (other 
     than an intern or resident appointed pursuant to section 7406 
     of this title) may not assume responsibility for the medical 
     care of any patient other than a patient admitted for 
     treatment at a Department facility, except in those cases 
     where the appointee, upon request and with the approval of 
     the Under Secretary for Health, assumes such responsibilities 
     to assist communities or medical practice groups to meet 
     medical needs which would not otherwise be met for a period 
     not to exceed 180 calendar days, which may be extended by the 
     Under Secretary for Health for additional periods not to 
     exceed 180 calendar days each.''.
                                                                    ____



                            The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

                                    Washington, February 21, 1996.
     Hon. Al Gore,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are transmitting a draft bill, ``To 
     amend title 38, United States Code, to exempt full-time 
     registered nurses, physician assistants, and expanded-
     function dental auxiliaries from restrictions on remunerated 
     outside professional activities.'' We request that it be 
     referred to the appropriate committee for prompt 
     consideration and enactment.
       This draft bill would amend section 7423 to exempt VHA 
     full-time registered nurses, physician assistants (PA's) , 
     and expanded-function dental auxiliaries (EFDA's) from the 
     restriction on moonlighting applicable to all title 38 
     employees. Specifically, the draft bill would exempt these 
     professional groups from the prohibition in subsection (b) of 
     that section against assuming responsibility for the medical 
     care of any patient not admitted to a VA facility. The 
     registered nurses, PA's, and EFDA's would continue to be 
     subject to conflict of interest restrictions on outside 
     remuneration for the performance of official duties. In 
     addition, the draft bill would correct a technical flaw in 
     the recodification of title 38 by reimposing the remunerated 
     outside activity restriction on VA Central Office executive 
     physicians, dentists, podiatrists and optometrists.
       Congress enacted the outside professional activities 
     restrictions to assure the availability of health care 
     professionals who are responsible for around the clock care 
     of VA patients. This availability primarily concerns 
     physicians, who must be on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a 
     week, to meet patient care needs. The moonlighting 
     restriction is unnecessary as to nurses, PA's and EFDA's 
     because VA has considerable flexibility to assure adequate 
     coverage by these professional groups without it.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
     is no objection to the submission of this draft bill and that 
     its enactment would be consistent with the Administration's 
     program.
           Sincerely yours,
     Jesse Brown.
                                                                    ____


                         Analysis of Draft Bill

       The draft bill would amend section 7423 by: 1. adding a new 
     subsection (c); 2. in subsection (b), deleting paragraph (1), 
     and redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6), as 
     paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5), and respectively; and 
     3. redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively.
       The new subsection (c) would exempt full-time registered 
     nurses, physician assistants, and expanded-function dental 
     auxiliaries from restrictions on remunerated outside 
     professional employment. Instead, new subsection (c) would 
     apply the restrictions on remunerated outside professional 
     employment only to physicians, dentists, podiatrists and 
     optometrists. The registered nurses would continue to be 
     subject to restrictions on outside remuneration for the 
     performance of official duties. New subsection (c) also would 
     correct a technical flaw in the recodification of title 38 by 
     reimposing these restrictions on VA Central Office executive 
     physicians, dentists, podiatrists and optometrists, by 
     broadening its application so as to cover all title 38 
     Veterans Health Medical Administration professionals. Current 
     law limits the restrictions to Veterans Health Administration 
     professionals appointed under Chapter 74. Executive medical 
     professionals are appointed under Chapters 3 and 73.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMPSON (by request):
  S. 1753. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the 
authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to suspend a special pay 
agreement for physicians and dentists who enter residency training 
programs; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                         veterans' legislation

 Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1753, a bill to expand the authority 
of the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to suspend special pay agreements 
for physicians and dentists who enter residency training programs. The

[[Page S4979]]

Secretary of Veterans' Affairs submitted this legislation to the 
President of the Senate by letter dated October 18, 1995.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the 
enclosed analysis of the draft legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1753

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act 
     an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment to 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.
       Sec. 2. Subsection 7432 (b)(2) is amended:
       (a) by inserting ``A'' after ``(2)'' before ``The'', and
       (b) adding a new subsection to read as follows:
       ``(B) The Secretary may, in the case of physician or 
     dentist who enters a residency training program, suspend the 
     special pay agreement. When the physician or dentist 
     completes, withdraws from or is no longer a participant in 
     the program, the special pay agreement shall be reinstated. 
     During such suspension the physician or dentist shall not be 
     subject to the refund requirement of paragraph 1.
                                                                    ____



                                Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

                                     Washington, October 18, 1995.
     Hon. Al Gore,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: There is transmitted herewith a draft 
     bill ``To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the 
     authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to suspend 
     special pay agreements for physicians and dentists who enter 
     residency training programs.'' We request that it be referred 
     to the appropriate committee for prompt consideration and 
     enactment.
       Under current law, in order to recruit and retain highly 
     qualified physicians and dentists in the Veterans Health 
     Administration, the Secretary is authorized to provide them 
     special pay. This special pay is provided under an agreement 
     that stipulates a period of service in return for receipt of 
     special pay and, in the event of a breach, the amount of 
     special pay paid to the recipient under the agreement must be 
     refunded. The special pay is in addition to any other pay and 
     allowances the recipient of the special pay is entitled to 
     receive.
       However, a physician or dentist entering a residency 
     training program must convert to a special appointment 
     category that is excluded from receipt of special pay. 
     Therefore, accepting a residency training position or 
     entering a non-VA sponsored residency program prior to the 
     expiration of the terms of the special pay agreement 
     constitutes a breach of the agreement triggering an 
     obligation to repay the special pay received in that year.
       This proposal would amend subsection 7432(b)(2) of title 
     38, United States Code to authorize VA to suspend the special 
     pay agreement of a physician or dentist who enters a 
     residency training program, VA sponsored or not. When the 
     physician or dentist completes, withdraws from or is no 
     longer a participant in the program, the special pay 
     agreement shall be reinstated. During such suspension the 
     physician or dentist shall not be subject to the refund 
     requirement of paragraph 1.
       The refund requirement penalty fixed in law for those 
     choosing to enter residency training programs is punitive and 
     counter-productive to VA's medical mission to provide 
     veterans the services of highly qualified and trained health 
     care professionals. In keeping with VA's mission, this 
     proposal would remove the imposition of adverse financial 
     consequences for those wishing to enter residency training 
     programs and would allow them to pursue educational 
     opportunities designed to increase and develop their 
     professional knowledge and skills.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
     is no objection to the submission of this draft bill from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program.
           Sincerely yours,
     Jesse Brown.
                                                                    ____


                         Analysis of Draft Bill

       This draft bill would amend subsection 7432(b)(2) of title 
     38, United States Code by adding a new subsection ``B'' that 
     would expand the authority of the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs to suspend a special pay agreement for physicians and 
     dentists who enter residency training programs. When they 
     complete, withdraw from or are no longer participants in the 
     program, the special pay agreement shall be reinstated. 
     During such suspension the physician or dentist shall not be 
     subject to the refund requirement of paragraph 1.
       Under existing law, a physician or dentist who enters a 
     residency training program is converted to a special 
     appointment category that is excluded from receipt of special 
     pay. Entering a residency training position constitutes a 
     breach of the agreement and triggers the obligation to repay 
     the special pay the recipient received in that year.
       The amendment would temporarily suspend the special pay 
     agreement during residency training and allow the return of 
     the physician or dentist to VA employment without incurring a 
     special pay refund obligation. If the physician or dentist 
     does not return, then a repayment obligation would 
     arise.

                          ____________________