[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 137 (Monday, October 6, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8369-H8373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION RESOLUTION AND 
                            ADJUDICATION ACT

  Mr. STUMP. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1703) to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for 
improved and expedited procedures for resolving complaints of unlawful 
employment discrimination arising within the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1703

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Veterans 
     Affairs Employment Discrimination Resolution and Adjudication 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE DEPARTMENT 
                   OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 5 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting at the end of subchapter I the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 516. Equal employment responsibilities

       ``(a) The Secretary shall provide that the employment 
     discrimination complaint resolution system within the 
     Department be established and administered so as to encourage 
     timely and fair resolution of concerns and complaints. The 
     Secretary shall take steps to ensure that the system is 
     administered in an objective, fair, and effective manner and 
     in a manner that is perceived by employees and other 
     interested parties as being objective, fair, and effective.
       ``(b) The Secretary shall provide--
       ``(1) that employees responsible for counseling functions 
     associated with employment discrimination and for receiving, 
     investigating, and processing complaints of employment 
     discrimination shall be supervised in those functions by, and 
     report to, an Assistant Secretary or a Deputy Assistant 
     Secretary for complaint resolution management; and
       ``(2) that employees performing employment discrimination 
     complaint resolution functions at a facility of the 
     Department shall not be subject to the authority, direction, 
     and control of the Director of the facility with respect to 
     those functions.
       ``(c) The Secretary shall ensure that all employees of the 
     Department receive adequate education and training for the 
     purposes of this section and section 319 of this title.
       ``(d) The Secretary shall impose appropriate disciplinary 
     measures, as authorized by law, in the case of employees of 
     the Department who engage in unlawful employment 
     discrimination, including retaliation against an employee 
     asserting rights under an equal employment opportunity law.
       ``(e) The number of employees of the Department whose 
     duties include equal employment opportunity counseling 
     functions as well as other, unrelated functions may not 
     exceed 40 full-time equivalent employees. Any such employee 
     may be assigned equal employment opportunity counseling 
     functions only at Department facilities in remote geographic 
     locations (as determined by the Secretary). The Secretary may 
     waive the limitation in the preceding sentence in specific 
     cases.
       ``(f) The provisions of this section shall be implemented 
     in a manner consistent with procedures applicable under 
     regulations prescribed by the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     515 the following new item:

``516. Equal employment responsibilities.''.
       (b) Reports on Implementation.--The Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall submit to Congress reports on the 
     implementation and operation of the equal employment 
     opportunity system within the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
     The first such report shall be submitted not later than April 
     1, 1998, and subsequent reports shall be submitted not later 
     than January 1, 1999, and January 1, 2000. Each such report 
     shall set forth the actions taken by the Secretary to 
     implement section 516 of title 38, United States Code, as 
     added by subsection (a), and other actions taken by the 
     Secretary in relation to the equal employment opportunity 
     system within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

     SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT ADJUDICATION AUTHORITY IN 
                   THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 3 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 319. Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint 
       Adjudication

       ``(a)(1) There is in the Department an Office of Employment 
     Discrimination Complaint Adjudication. There is at the head 
     of the Office a Director.
       ``(2) The Director shall be a career appointee in the 
     Senior Executive Service.
       ``(3) The Director reports directly to the Secretary or the 
     Deputy Secretary concerning matters within the responsibility 
     of the Office.
       ``(b)(1) The Director is responsible for making the final 
     agency decision within the Department on the merits of any 
     employment discrimination complaint filed by an employee, or 
     an applicant for employment, with the Department. The 
     Director shall make such decisions in an impartial and 
     objective manner.
       ``(2) No person may make any ex parte communication to the 
     Director or to any employee of the Office with respect to a 
     matter on which the Director has responsibility for making a 
     final agency decision.
       ``(c) Whenever the Director has reason to believe that 
     there has been retaliation against an employee by reason of 
     the employee asserting rights under an equal employment 
     opportunity law, the Director shall report the suspected 
     retaliatory action directly to the Secretary or Deputy 
     Secretary, who shall take appropriate action thereon.
       ``(d)(1) The Office shall employ a sufficient number of 
     attorneys and other personnel as are necessary to carry out 
     the functions of the Office. Attorneys shall be compensated 
     at a level commensurate with attorneys employed by the Office 
     of General Counsel.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall ensure that the Director is 
     furnished sufficient resources in addition to personnel under 
     paragraph (1) to enable the Director to carry out the 
     functions of the Office in a timely manner.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall ensure that any performance 
     appraisal of the Director of the Office of Employment 
     Discrimination Complaint Adjudication or of any employee of 
     the Office does not take into consideration the record of the 
     Director or employee in deciding cases for or against the 
     Department.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``319. Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication.''.
       (b) Reports on Implementation.--The Director of the Office 
     of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (established by section 319 of 
     title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)) 
     shall submit to the Secretary and to Congress reports on the 
     implementation and the operation of that office. The first 
     such report shall be submitted not later than April 1, 1998, 
     and subsequent reports shall be submitted not later than 
     January 1, 1999, and January 1, 2000.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Sections 516 and 319 of title 38, United States Code, as 
     added by sections 2 and 3 of this Act, shall take effect 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. INDEPENDENT PANEL TO REVIEW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 
                   OPPORTUNITY AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT PROCEDURES 
                   WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a panel to 
     review the equal employment opportunity and sexual harassment 
     practices and procedures within the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs and to make recommendations on improvements to those 
     practices and procedures.
       (b) Panel Functions Relating to Equal Employment 
     Opportunity and Sexual Harassment.--The panel shall assess 
     the culture of the Department of Veterans Affairs in 
     relationship to the issues of equal employment opportunity 
     and sexual harassment, determine the effect of that culture 
     on the operation of the Department overall, and provide 
     recommendations as necessary to change that culture. As part 
     of the review, the panel shall do the following:
       (1) Determine whether laws relating to equal employment 
     opportunity and sexual harassment, as those laws apply to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, and regulations and policy 
     directives of the Department relating to equal employment 
     opportunity and sexual harassment have been consistently 
     and fairly applied throughout the Department and make 
     recommendations to correct any disparities.
       (2) Review practices of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     relevant studies, and private sector training and reporting 
     concepts as those practices, studies, and concepts pertain to 
     equal employment opportunity, sexual misconduct, and sexual 
     harassment policies and enforcement.

[[Page H8370]]

       (3) Provide an independent assessment of the Report on the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Process Review Task 
     Force of the Department.
       (c) Composition.--(1) The panel shall be composed of six 
     members, appointed as follows:
       (A) Three members shall be appointed jointly by the 
     chairman and ranking minority party member of the Committee 
     on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.
       (B) Three members shall be appointed jointly by the 
     chairman and ranking minority party member of the Committee 
     on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate.
       (2) The members of the panel shall choose one of the 
     members to chair the panel.
       (d) Qualifications.--Members of the panel shall be 
     appointed from among private United States citizens with 
     knowledge and expertise in one or more of the following:
       (1) Extensive prior military experience, particularly in 
     the area of personnel policy management.
       (2) Extensive experience with equal employment opportunity 
     complaint procedures, either within Federal or State 
     government or in the private sector.
       (3) Extensive knowledge of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, and particularly knowledge of personnel practices 
     within the Department.
       (e) Reports.--(1) Not later than six months after the 
     members of the panel are appointed, the panel shall submit an 
     interim report on its findings and conclusions to the 
     Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) Not later than one year after establishment of the 
     panel, the panel shall submit a final report to the 
     Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives. The final report shall include an assessment 
     of the equal employment opportunity system and the culture 
     within the Department of Veterans Affairs, with particular 
     emphasis on sexual harassment. The panel shall include in the 
     report recommendations to improve the culture within the 
     Department.
       (f) Pay and Expenses of Members.--(1) Each member of the 
     panel shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the panel.
       (2) The members of the panel shall be allowed travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates 
     authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of 
     chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from 
     their homes or regular places of business in the performance 
     of services for the panel.
       (g) Administrative Support.--The Chairman may hire such 
     staff as necessary to accomplish the duties outlined under 
     this title.
       (h) Funding.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall, upon 
     the request of the panel, make available to the panel such 
     amounts as the panel may require, not to exceed $400,000, to 
     carry out its duties under this title.
       (i) Termination of Panel.--The panel shall terminate 60 
     days after the date on which it submits its final report 
     under subsection (e)(2).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Stump] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)


                             General Leave

  Mr. STUMP. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 1703.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 1703 is the bipartisan equal employment 
opportunity reform bill for the VA. Many committee members from both 
sides of the aisle contributed to this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, as my colleagues know, the problem of sexual 
harassment is not new to our society or our Federal work force. It has 
only been in the past decade or so, however, that Congress has begun to 
truly recognize the depths of the problem and attempted to eliminate it 
from our workplace.
  Recent testimony before the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations has shown that sexual harassment has been 
far too commonplace at the VA over the past few years. Despite what I 
consider to be sincere efforts of VA Secretary Jesse Brown and his 
successor, Hershel Gober, VA's ``zero tolerance'' policy against sexual 
harassment has failed.
  VA's zero tolerance policy was placed in effect in 1993 after the 
Subcommittee on Oversight's hearings showed a seriously flawed EEO 
process and a culture of tolerance toward sexual harassment at the VA. 
I chaired those hearings back then, and I also fought to overhaul the 
EEO process within the VA at that time.
  Thanks to the collective efforts of our past chairman, Sonny 
Montgomery, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], our current 
chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Clyburn], the 
subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], 
and others, the House passed legislation during the 103d Congress that 
is nearly identical to the bill that we are considering today.
  Given the promises of comprehensive Government-wide EEO reform, 
however, the Senate did not act on this piece of legislation. Nearly 5 
years later, there has been no Government-wide reform of this process, 
there have been no major overhauls of the VA's administrative process, 
and VA's well-intentioned zero tolerance policy has proven to be 
ineffective.
  But thanks to the leadership of VA's Oversight Subcommittee Chairman, 
Terry Everett, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has continued to keep 
a watchful eye on the VA's efforts to eliminate sexual harassment in 
the workplace. Joined by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Clyburn] and Republicans, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], and the gentleman from Arizona 
[Mr. Stump], Terry and I introduced this bipartisan legislation that we 
are considering today on the floor of the House.
  I commend the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. Everett], for fighting the 
good fight, and I look forward to the passage of this legislation this 
afternoon.

                              {time}  1445

  No one should think that we in Congress will be able to completely 
end sexual harassment, discrimination and abuse at the VA or anywhere 
else. Still, we can play a significant role in bringing renewed 
professionalism, independence and objectivity to the EEO process at the 
VA, and that is exactly what we will do by enacting H.R. 1703.
  By removing the EEO complaint process from the facility where the 
discrimination allegedly occurred, this legislation limits the ability 
of heavy-handed facility directors to unfairly influence the 
discrimination complaint process. By removing the final agency 
decision-making authority from the VA's office, this legislation 
eliminates the obvious conflict of interest created when the general 
counsel is expected to be an advocate for the VA on one hand, and to 
decide the merits of discrimination complaints against the department 
on the other hand.
  By enacting this bill, we can address these serious flaws and bring 
renewed independence, objectivity and professionalism to the EEO 
process at the VA.
  I am pleased to say that VA Secretary Hershel Gober has acknowledged 
that the VA's current EEO process is flawed and in need of reform. In 
anticipation of this legislation and similar legislation in the Senate, 
Mr. Gober has already initiated administrative changes to the EEO 
process which would bring the department much of the way toward 
achieving the reforms originally proposed in 1993. I applaud his 
leadership and his demonstrated level of commitment on this issue, but 
it is still up to Congress to make sure that the VA does all the work 
it needs to do for this issue to be addressed.
  The Congress cannot and should not be expected to wait any longer for 
meaningful reform of the EEO process within the VA. More importantly, 
this Nation's veterans and the VA employees dedicated to serving them 
cannot be expected to wait any longer for meaningful action and honest 
reform to come to the EEO process at the VA.
  By enacting H.R. 1703, we in Congress can help put the VA back on the 
path toward restoring employee trust and eradicating discrimination in 
the workplace. Our veterans and VA employees deserve no less.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett], the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Oversight and Investigations.

[[Page H8371]]

  (Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1703, as 
amended, the Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Discrimination 
Resolution and Adjudication Act.
  This legislation has grown out of oversight activities of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations which was reestablished at the beginning of this 
session. I will outline the bill shortly, but first I want to give my 
colleagues some background on issues which led to it.
  In 1993, as a result of committee hearings led by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Evans] on serious sexual harassment cases at the Atlanta 
VA Medical Center and elsewhere, the House passed a bipartisan bill, 
H.R. 1032, to strengthen the VA's EEO system. The gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Evans], now our committee's ranking Democrat, was one of 
the authors of that bill.
  The VA opposed the bill and it died in the Senate, as the gentleman 
from Illinois has indicated. Nevertheless, the VA promised to address 
the EEO problems the committee had identified. To make a long story 
short, it did not happen.
  Then came Fayetteville earlier this year. This past April 17, the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, at the request of the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], an active member of our 
committee, held a hearing on allegations of sexual harassment and other 
abusive treatment of employees at the Fayetteville VA Medical Center in 
North Carolina. Five courageous women came before the subcommittee to 
tell us, under oath, what had happened there. It of course differed in 
details, but essentially it was Atlanta all over again.
  The testimony showed that the influence and control the former 
director at Fayetteville had over EEO complaint processing had 
discouraged VA employees from filing complaints and had prevented those 
who did from getting a fair hearing. Mr. Speaker, we heard testimony 
that the women, one of the women involved actually heard the EEO 
officer, who was the director, laugh at the complaints that had been 
filed. Obviously, the problems that the Atlanta case have revealed in 
the VA EEO system still remain.
  As a consequence, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans]; the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn], the subcommittee's ranking 
Democrat; the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the chairman of the 
full committee; the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis]; and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] have joined me in introducing H.R. 
1703, a virtually identical bill to H.R. 1032. Down in Alabama we have 
a saying: ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,'' 
and that is the reason we feel this legislation ought to go into law. I 
feel I speak for the cosponsors of the bill when I say we firmly 
believe that the needed EEO reforms at the VA should be a matter of 
law.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1703, as amended, will require the VA to establish 
a new EEO complaint resolution system separate from the facility 
management. It would also require the VA to establish a new, 
independent final decision-making office for the EEO cases. The 
director of the office will report directly to the VA's Secretary or 
Deputy Secretary. The bill would obligate the VA to report regularly to 
Congress on its progress in implementing the new provisions and on the 
operation of the new EEO system.
  Finally, the bill would establish an independent panel to determine 
the extent of VA's hostile working environment for women and other VA 
employees.
  Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I want to thank our distinguished 
Committee on Veterans Affairs chairman, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Stump], for his support and vigorous oversight of the VA, for giving 
H.R. 1703, as amended, a high priority, and for bringing it so quickly 
to the floor. Also, I particularly want to mention the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Evans] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Clyburn] for their hard work and personal involvement in this 
legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] 
for his leadership on both the Committee on Veterans Affairs and the 
Committee on National Security on this issue. The gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], as well, has been tireless in his efforts to 
promote these reforms the VA needs so much for its employees.
  Our bipartisan bill will not solve every EEO problem, but I believe 
it will go a long way toward restoring competence of VA employees in 
the Department's EEO system. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues 
to act favorably on H.R. 1703, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, I just received word that the VA has just announced that 
the administration has no objection to the House passage of H.R. 1703.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1703, as amended, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Discrimination Resolution and 
Adjudication Act.
  This legislation has grown out of the oversight activities of the 
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, which 
was reestablished at the beginning of this season. I will outline the 
bill shortly, but first I want to give my colleagues some background on 
the issues which led to it.
  In 1993, as the result of committee hearings on serious sexual 
harassment cases at the Atlanta VA Medical Center and elsewhere, the 
House passed a bipartisan bill, H.R. 1032, to strengthen the VA's equal 
employment opportunity [EEO] system. Mr. Evans, now our committee's 
ranking Democrat, was one of the authors of that bill.
  The VA opposed the bill and it died in the Senate. Nonetheless, the 
VA promised to address the EEO problems the committee had identified, 
but, to make a long story short, it did not.
  Then came Fayetteville earlier this year. This past April 17, the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, at the request of Mr. 
Bilirakis, an active member of our committee, held a hearing on 
allegations of sexual harassment and other abusive treatment of 
employees at the Fayetteville VA Medical Center in North Carolina. Five 
courageous women came before the subcommittee to tell us under oath 
what had happened there.
  It of course differed in the details, but essentially it was Atlanta 
all over again. And to make matters even worse, the VA had not 
disciplined the medical center's former director, against whom the 
allegations were made. Instead, he had been allowed to transfer at the 
taxpayer's expense to a VA hospital in Florida, Bay Pines, near where 
he owned a home and where a nonsupervisory job has been created 
especially for him at a slightly higher salary than he had as a 
hospital director. This ``Club Med'' treatment for an abusive boss 
understandably outraged many employees at Fayetteville.
  The subcommittee believed, based on the testimony it heard, that 
there were probably more cases of harassment or abusive treatment of 
employees, both women and men, at Fayetteville. As the chairman, I 
asked the VA to do a more thorough investigation, which it did. 
Unfortunately, our concerns proved well founded, and many additional 
cases came to light. While Fayetteville has new management, we are 
still monitoring VA's efforts to make the affected employees whole and 
to restore morale. Some employees had actually been driven into 
retirement under what amounted to duress in order to escape unbearable 
working conditions.
  When we asked employees at Fayetteville with sexual harassment cases 
why they did not file discrimination complaints with the VA's EEO 
system, they asked, ``How could we? The director was the hospital's EEO 
officer and we had no confidence that anything would be done.'' One 
witness testified that the director and the EEO manager would meet 
after hours, discuss the EEO cases and laugh about them.
  The testimony showed that the influence and control the former 
director at Fayetteville had over EEO complaint processing was 
discouraging VA employees from filing complaints and preventing those 
who did from getting fair treatment. Obviously, the problems the 
Atlanta cases had revealed in the VA's EEO system still remained.
  As a consequence, Mr. Evans, Mr. Clyburn, the subcommittee's ranking 
Democrat, Chairman Stump, Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Buyer joined me in 
introducing H.R. 1703, a virtually identical bill to H.R. 1032. Down in 
Alabama, we have a saying, ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, 
shame on me.''
  Since we introduced the bill and before the follow up hearing we held 
on July 17, the VA has taken significant administrative steps to do 
much of what our bill would accomplish. We have had serious discussions 
with the VA about their objections to various features of the bill and 
have completely redrafted the bill without changing its objectives. The 
Administration now has no objection to passage of the bill. I think I 
speak for the bill's cosponsors when I say we firmly believe that the 
needed EEO reforms at VA should be a matter of law.

[[Page H8372]]

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1703, as amended, would require the VA to establish 
a new EEO complaint resolution system separated from facility 
management. It would also require the VA to establish a new, quasi-
independent final decision-making office of EEO cases. The director of 
the office would report directly to the VA Secretary or Deputy 
Secretary. The bill would obligate the VA to report back regularly to 
Congress on its progress in implementing the new provisions and on the 
operations of its new EEO system.

  Finally, the bill would establish an independent panel to asses the 
extent of this current problem within the VA.
  Our bill is cost neutral. It requires changes in the way the VA 
processes and decides EEO cases, but the VA has assured the committee 
that it can accomplish these changes within its current budgetary 
resources. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office estimates no 
significant additional costs for a reformed EEO system at the VA.
  Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I want to thank our distinguished 
Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman, Bob Stump, for his support of 
vigorous oversight of the VA in order to ensure that our Nation's 
veterans receive the benefits and services Congress has mandated, and 
for giving H.R. 1703, as amended, a high priority and bringing it to 
the floor so quickly.
  Also, I particularly want to commend Mr. Evans and Mr. Clyburn for 
their hard work and personal involvement in this legislation. I want to 
commend Mr. Buyer for his leadership on both the Veterans' Affairs and 
National Security Committees on these issues. Mr. Bilirakis as well has 
been tireless in his efforts to promote the reforms needed so much too 
improve the workplace for VA employees.
  Our bipartisan bill would not solve every EEO problem, but I believe 
it would go a long way toward restoring the confidence of VA employees 
in the department's EEO system. Therefore, I strongly urge my 
colleagues to act favorably on H.R. 1703, as amended.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Clyburn], the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1703, as amended, 
the Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Discrimination Resolution 
and Adjudication Act.
  The veterans oversight hearings chaired by the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Everett], my distinguished Republican colleague, have demonstrated 
an extremely sensitive and serious problem of sexual harassment within 
the Department of Veterans Affairs. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Evans] and I were original cosponsors of legislation nearly identical 
to H.R. 1703 back in 1993. At that time, we were told that changes were 
in the works regarding the EEO process at the VA and throughout the 
Federal Government, and that there would be no need for this 
legislation.
  This expected Government-wide solution never happened. The Senate 
never acted on the bill we passed in 1993, and here we are again almost 
5 years later dealing with sexual harassment problems that continue to 
fester at the VA.
  It is a tribute to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett] that he 
has recognized the continuing need for legislation to improve the EEO 
process at VA. This May, with bipartisan support, the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Everett] introduced H.R. 1703, legislation derived from 
the bill that was first introduced in 1993.
  It is also a tribute to Secretary Hershel Gober that he has 
recognized a serious problem with the EEO process at VA, and that he 
has proposed administrative changes that draw in large part from the 
bill we have introduced in this Congress.
  The VA's proposals do not go far enough, and there is still the need 
for legislation in this area. That is why we need to pass H.R. 1703 
today, and that is why we need to do all we can to make sure our 
colleagues in the Senate quickly act on their version of this 
legislation.
  By voting in favor of H.R. 1703, we in Congress can do our part to 
bring professionalism and independence to the EEO process at the VA, 
and to help restore the faith and trust in the process that has been so 
lacking through the last few years.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I am very gratified that this legislation 
is being offered today. The bill is nearly identical to legislation 
that I sponsored during my first term in Congress in 1993, along with 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and others.
  The problem of employment discrimination within the VA, particularly 
of sexual harassment within the department, is a problem that cannot be 
tolerated. The changes called for by this bill should make a major 
difference in ensuring that cases of discrimination or other improper 
behavior are handled in a proper manner.
  Rather than having local VA officials police their own, a situation 
which invites personal relationships to interfere in an investigation, 
this bill offers us a better solution. Setting up an office of 
employment discrimination within the VA central office will enable a 
fair and more accurate system for dealing with complaints of harassment 
and discrimination.
  In addition, I am hopeful that this bill will prove to be a step in 
the right direction, and encourage us to take action to develop proper 
care and treatment within the VA for Armed Forces personnel who have 
been sexually abused or harassed during their service in our military. 
This body's interest in addressing the problem of sexual harassment 
should not end today.
  The VA's function is to serve veterans, and at present, it is doing 
an inadequate job of serving veterans who have been the victims of 
sexual abuse or harassment.
  I introduced legislation earlier this year that would improve such 
care. I have been alarmed to learn that despite the high-profile cases 
that we have heard about this year at Aberdeen and other military 
installations and bases, the opportunity for a woman to receive care 
and treatment within the VA for those incidents of abuse is very rare.
  I am gratified that more than 50 Members have agreed to cosponsor 
H.R. 2253. I would ask that any Members of this House who are voting 
with me to expand the investigation of sexual harassment within the VA 
will likewise join with me to pass legislation that will treat former 
military personnel, and I want to underscore this, that will treat 
former military personnel who seek help within the VA as a result of 
such abuse.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Evans], the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett], 
and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn] for their work on 
this important legislation. It should be supported by all Members of 
this House.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  A lot of people put a lot of time in achieving this bill, and I 
especially want to thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett], the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn] for all of the effort that 
he put forth on this bill, as well as the ranking member of the full 
committee; and of course the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], who originally asked for a 
meeting, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez], who just made 
a statement. As I mentioned before, this is a very bipartisan bill and 
I urge the Members to support it.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1703, 
Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Discrimination Resolution and 
Adjudication Act.
  Over the past several months, incidents of sexual harassment by 
several of the VA's senior career managers have come to my attention. 
This greatly disturbs me because Congress investigated similar problems 
several years ago. In fact, when I served as the ranking minority 
member of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, we conducted a 
hearing on sexual harassment in the VA workplace in 1992.
  At that time, we heard from several VA employees who had been the 
victims of sexual harassment. It took a great deal of courage for these 
women to come forward and share their experiences with our committee. 
Many of these women were also subjected to acts of retaliation by their 
abusers and other VA employees.

[[Page H8373]]

  Their perception, which was shared by many other employees, was that 
the VA did not take sexual harassment complaints seriously. There was a 
great deal of suspicion and distrust caused by too many years of 
apparent toleration of unacceptable behavior.
  Without question, our 1992 hearing revealed that the process in place 
at the VA for investigating sexual harassment complaints was seriously 
flawed. Consequently, the Veterans' Affairs Committee unanimously 
approved legislation, which was later passed by the House, to address 
the problems at the VA. H.R. 1032 would have provided for improved and 
expedited procedures for resolving complaints of employment 
discrimination, including sexual harassment complaints.
  When we considered H.R. 1032, VA Secretary Brown opposed the passage 
of this legislation because he preferred to take administrative action 
instead. The Senate did not act on H.R. 1032, and the bill was never 
enacted into law.
  Secretary Brown established a policy of zero tolerance of sexual 
harassment and other forms of discrimination within the Department of 
Veterans Affairs early in his tenure as Secretary. Unfortunately, it 
appears that this policy of zero tolerance is not being enforced.
  Almost 5 years after our first hearing, we are faced with a similar 
situation at the VA. This matter was brought to my attention again when 
the director of the Fayetteville VA Medical Center was found to have 
sexually harassed one female employee. He also engaged in abusive, 
threatening and inappropriate behavior toward other female employees. 
This director was transferred to the Bay Pines VA Medical Center which 
serves many of the veterans in my congressional district. He was 
allowed to retain a salary of more than $100,000 in a position created 
specifically for him.
  I heard from my constituents, particularly female veterans and VA 
employees, who were outraged by the Department's actions on this 
matter. They do not believe that the VA took any punitive action 
against this senior VA employee.
  At my request, the Veterans' Affairs Oversight Subcommittee held a 
hearing on this latest incident of sexual harassment on April 17, 1997. 
We heard from several VA employees who were subjected to abusive 
treatment while working in the Fayetteville Medical Center. Sadly, 
their stories mirror those that we first heard in 1992. Despite the 
Secretary's zero tolerance policy, it appears that the VA has failed to 
adequately implement sufficient administrative procedures to deal with 
sexual harassment complaints.
  Our witnesses believed that their harasser was not properly or 
adequately punished. In fact, they felt that he was rewarded for his 
actions ``by being sent to the place he wanted to be with a raise in 
salary.'' This certainly appears to be the case. Consequently, I am 
greatly concerned that the VA's policy of zero tolerance has, at best, 
not been implemented uniformly, and at worst, has been ignored.
  In 1992, I said that ``Everyone has the right to live and to go to 
work without fear of harassment of any sort * * * we owe all female 
veterans and all female VA employees the assurance that we will not 
tolerate sexual harassment at any level.'' This statement is just as 
relevant today as it was 5 years ago.
  Our 1992 hearing revealed that the process in place at the VA for 
investigating sexual harassment complaints was seriously flawed. Our 
1997 hearing showed that the process is still flawed. Although I wish 
it were not necessary, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of 
Chairman Everett's legislation, H.R. 1703.
  We cannot defer legislative action again. I certainly do not want to 
find out 5 years from now that the VA's EEO process is still broken. 
Victims of sexual harassment and other types of employment 
discrimination deserve a sympathetic and effective response from their 
employer. The legislation before us is essential to assure employees 
that mistreatment will be dealt with fairly.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1703.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1703, 
the Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Discrimination Resolution 
and Adjudication Act of 1997.
  In recent years, we have heard of numerous cases where individuals 
within the Department of Veterans Affairs who were subjected to sexual 
harassment and other unlawful employment discrimination. As a result, 
the Department has established a zero-tolerance policy on sexual 
harassment and has promised to improve its equal opportunity system.
  This legislation would assist the Department in meeting that goal by 
establishing a new Office of Resolution Management [ORM] to carry out 
such responsibilities. The number of full time professional EEO 
counselors and investigators is increased under this legislation.
  Furthermore, H.R. 1703 mandates that the VA Secretary establish an 
Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication [OEDCA] to 
issue final decisions on the merits of discrimination claims within the 
Department. The director of OEDCA will report directly to the VA 
Secretary and will have sole responsibility within the VA for resolving 
complaints of sexual harassment and other unlawful employment 
practices.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
legislation, which will help to reduce the level of unlawful employment 
incidents in the VA and allow those who were victims of such practices 
to continue to move forward in helping our veterans.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of two 
important veterans bills being considered on the floor today. H.R. 
1703, the Veterans' Affairs Employment Discrimination Prevention Act, 
would establish a new VA office to resolve employment discrimination 
claims by veterans. Too often, our Nation's veterans are the victims of 
discrimination in the workplace, and this legislation would help ensure 
that their concerns are heard and resolved.
  H.R. 2206, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act, will provide 
needed help to homeless veterans and veterans of the gulf war. The 
legislation would reauthorize a number of important Federal programs 
for homeless veterans, and allow the VA to operate more care facilities 
for veterans suffering from drug and alcohol abuse.
  In addition, H.R. 2206 would expand medical care eligibility for gulf 
war veterans, so that any veteran with gulf war illnesses could receive 
health care from the VA--whether or not their illness can be proven as 
caused by exposure to toxins. The bill also authorizes $5 million in 
funds for researching new forms of treatment of gulf war syndrome.
  I represent both veterans and veterans' families who continue to 
suffer from gulf war illnesses, with no end in sight. Unfortunately, 
many suffering veterans don't get medical care because they cannot 
prove the cause of their illness. This legislation will ensure medical 
help is available for those gulf war veterans who need it.
  I am glad to see these two bills come to the floor, and I urge my 
colleagues to support them.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump), that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1703, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend 
title 38, United States Code, to provide for improvements in the system 
of the Department of Veterans Affairs for resolution and adjudication 
of complaints of employment discrimination.''
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________