Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 66 (Monday, May 13, 1996)

[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

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.

____________________