[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 88 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6665-S6670]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINTS RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Dorgan,
Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Torricelli, and Mrs.
Lincoln):
S. 1087. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a shorter recovery period of the depreciation of certain leasehold
improvements; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleagues Mr.
Nickles, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms,
Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Schumer, and Mr.
Torricelli, to introduce important legislation to provide for a 10-year
depreciation life for leasehold improvements. Leasehold improvements
are the alterations to leased space made by a building owner as part of
the lease agreement with a tenant.
This is a common sense move that will help bring economic development
to cities and towns around the country that want to revitalize their
business districts. It will allow owners of commercial property to
remodel their buildings to better meet the business needs of their
communities--whether it's new computer ports and data lines for high-
tech entrepreneurs, or better lighting and sales space for retailers.
In actual commercial use, leasehold improvements typically last as
long as the lease--an average of 5 to 10 years. However, the Internal
Revenue Code requires leasehold improvements to be depreciated over 39
years--the life of the building itself.
Economically, this makes no sense. The owner receives taxable income
over the life of the lease, yet can only recover the costs of the
improvements associated with that lease over 39 years--a rate nearly
four times slower. This preposterous mismatch of income and expenses
causes the owner to incur an artificially high tax cost on these
improvements.
The bill we are introducing today will correct this irrational and
uneconomic tax treatment by shortening the cost recovery period for
certain leasehold improvements from 39 years to a more realistic 10
years. If enacted, this legislation would more closely align the
expenses incurred to construct improvements with the income they
generate over the term of the lease.
By reducing the cost recovery period, the expense of making these
improvements could fall more into line with the economics of a
commercial lease transaction, and more building owners would be able to
adapt their buildings to fit the needs of today's business tenant.
We have an interest in keeping existing buildings commercially
viable. When older buildings can serve tenants who need modern,
efficient commercial space, there is less pressure for developing
greenfields in outlying areas. Americans are concerned about preserving
open space, natural resources, and a sense of neighborhood. The current
law 39-year cost recovery period for leasehold improvements is an
impediment to reinvesting in existing properties and communities.
Shortening the recovery period will make renovation and
revitalization of business properties more attractive. That will be
good not just for property owners, but also for the economic
development professionals who are working hard every day to attract new
businesses to empty downtown storefronts or aging strip malls. And it
will be good for the architects and contractors who carry out the
renovations.
The broad appeal of this proposal is reflected in the roster of
supporters we have attracted. The proposal has been endorsed by
Building and Office Managers Association International; International
Council of Shopping Centers; National Association of Industrial and
Office Properties; National Association of Real Estate Investment
Trusts; National Association of Realtors; American Institute of
Architects; Real Estate Roundtable; Associated General Contractors;
National Retail Federation; and International Franchise Association.
I urge all Senators to join us in supporting this legislation to
provide rational depreciation treatment for leasehold improvements.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1087
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 ``Business Property Economic
Revitalization Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. RECOVERY PERIOD FOR DEPRECIATION OF CERTAIN LEASEHOLD
IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) 10-Year Recovery Period.--Subparagraph (D) of section
168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
10-year property) is amended by striking ``and'' at
[[Page S6666]]
the end of clause (i), by striking the period at the end of
clause (ii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end
the following new clause:
``(iii) any qualified leasehold improvement property.''.
(b) Qualified Leasehold Improvement Property.--Subsection
(e) of section 168 of such Code is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Qualified leasehold improvement property.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified leasehold
improvement property' means any improvement to an interior
portion of a building which is nonresidential real property
if--
``(i) such improvement is made under or pursuant to a lease
(as defined in subsection (h)(7))--
``(I) by the lessee (or any sublessee) of such portion, or
``(II) by the lessor of such portion,
``(ii) such portion is to be occupied exclusively by the
lessee (or any sublessee) of such portion, and
``(iii) such improvement is placed in service more than 3
years after the date the building was first placed in
service.
``(B) Certain improvements not included.--Such term shall
not include any improvement for which the expenditure is
attributable to--
``(i) the enlargement of the building,
``(ii) any elevator or escalator,
``(iii) any structural component benefiting a common area,
and
``(iv) the internal structural framework of the building.
``(C) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) Commitment to lease treated as lease.--A commitment
to enter into a lease shall be treated as a lease, and the
parties to such commitment shall be treated as lessor and
lessee, respectively.
``(ii) Related persons.--A lease between related persons
shall not be considered a lease. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, the term `related persons' means--
``(I) members of an affiliated group (as defined in section
1504), and
``(II) persons having a relationship described in
subsection (b) of section 267; except that, for purposes of
this clause, the phrase `80 percent or more' shall be
substituted for the phrase `more than 50 percent' each place
it appears in such subsection.
``(D) Improvements made by lessor.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of an improvement made by
the person who was the lessor of such improvement when such
improvement was placed in service, such improvement shall be
qualified leasehold improvement property (if at all) only so
long as such improvement is held by such person.
``(ii) Exception for changes in form of business.--Property
shall not cease to be qualified leasehold improvement
property under clause (i) by reason of--
``(I) death,
``(II) a transaction to which section 381(a) applies,
``(III) a mere change in the form of conducting the trade
or business so long as the property is retained in such trade
or business as qualified leasehold improvement property and
the taxpayer retains a substantial interest in such trade or
business,
``(IV) the acquisition of such property in an exchange
described in section 1031, 1033, 1038, or 1039 to the extent
that the basis of such property includes an amount
representing the adjusted basis of other property owned by
the taxpayer or a related person, or
``(V) the acquisition of such property by the taxpayer in a
transaction described in section 332, 351, 361, 721, or 731
(or the acquisition of such property by the taxpayer from the
transferee or acquiring corporation in a transaction
described in such section), to the extent that the basis of
the property in the hands of the taxpayer is determined by
reference to its basis in the hands of the transferor or
distributor.
``(iii) Related person.--For purposes of this subparagraph,
a person (hereafter in this clause referred to as the
`related person') is related to any person if the related
person bears a relationship to such person specified in
section 267(b) or 707(b)(1), or the related person and such
person are engaged in trades or businesses under common
control (within the meaning of subsections (a) and (b) of
section 52).''.
(c) Requirement To Use Straight Line Method.--Paragraph (3)
of section 168(b) of such Code is amended by adding at the
end the following new subparagraph:
``(G) Qualified leasehold improvement property described in
subsection (e)(6).''.
(d) Alternative System.--The table contained in section
168(g)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by inserting after the
item relating to subparagraph (D)(ii) the following new item:
``(D)(iii)..................................................10''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to qualified leasehold improvement property
placed in service after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 1088. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to facilitate
the use of educational assistance under the Montgomery GI bill for
education leading to employment in high technology industry, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am tremendously pleased to
introduce today legislation that would allow veterans to use their
Montgomery GI bill educational benefits to pay for short-term, high
technology courses that lead to lucrative careers. I am pleased to be
joined by my colleague on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Ranking
Minority Member Senator Arlen Specter.
The GI bill allowed a generation of soldiers returning from World War
II to create the booming post-war economy, and, in fact, the prosperity
that we enjoy today. Today's Montgomery GI bill, MGIB, modeled after
the original GI bill, provides a valuable recruitment and retention
tool for the Armed Services and begins to repay veterans for the
service they have given to our Nation. As a transition benefit, it
allows veterans to gain the skills they need to adjust productively to
civilian life.
Currently, the MGIB provides a basic monthly benefit of $650 for 36
months of education. This payment structure is designed to assist
veterans pursuing traditional four-year degrees at universities.
However, in today's fast paced, high-tech economy, traditional degrees
may not always be the best option. Many veterans are pursuing forms of
nontraditional training, short-term courses often leading to
certification in a technical field. In certain fields, these
certifications are a prerequisite to employment.
These courses, such as Microsoft or Cisco systems training, may be
offered through training centers, private contractors to community
colleges, or the companies themselves. They often last just a few weeks
or months, and can cost many thousands of dollars. The way MGIB is paid
out in monthly disbursements is not suited to this course structure.
For example, MGIB would pay, at most, $1300 for a two-month course that
potentially costs $10,000.
Even if veterans claimed this small benefit, providers must be
approved by VA as an educational institution in every State in which
they operate in order for MGIB benefits to be paid for coursework.
Because veterans would only recoup a small portion of the course cost
from VA, many of the course providers do not undertake the onerous
processing of becoming VA-approved. Therefore, many veterans with MGIB
eligibility are forced to bear the entire costs of these courses. Many
borrow the funds to pay for them, incurring significant interest
charges.
I note that last year, in Public Law 106-419, Congress extended MGIB
benefits to cover the costs of certification exams that these courses
prepare veterans to take. I believe that we should take the next
logical step and pay for the courses themselves.
The percentage of veterans who actually use the MGIB benefits that
they have earned and paid for is startlingly low, despite almost full
enrollment in the program by servicemembers. By increasing the
flexibility of the MGIB program, we will permit more veterans to take
advantage of these benefits. We should give veterans the right to
choose what kind of educational program will be best for them.
This legislation would modify the payment method to accommodate the
compressed schedule of the courses. Specifically, Section 1 would allow
veterans to receive an accelerated payment equal to 60 percent of the
cost of the program. This is comparable to VA's MGIB benefit for flight
training, for which VA reimburses 60 percent of the costs. The dollar
value of the accelerated payment would then be deducted from the
veteran's remaining entitlement. Section 2 would allow courses offered
by these providers to be covered by MGIB.
In closing, I note that many servicemembers leave the military with
skills that place them in demand for careers in the technology sector.
But even these veterans may require coursework to convert their
military skills to civilian careers. The MGIB must continue to evolve
to keep pace with the careers and education that today's veterans
require. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the changing
needs of our veterans, and to maintain this investment in our veterans
and our Nation.
[[Page S6667]]
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1088
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ACCELERATED PAYMENTS OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER MONTGOMERY GI BILL FOR EDUCATION LEADING
TO EMPLOYMENT IN HIGH TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY.
(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 30 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 3014 the
following new section:
``Sec. 3014A. Accelerated payment of basic educational
assistance for education leading to employment in high
technology industry
``(a) An individual described in subsection (b) who is
entitled to basic educational assistance under this
subchapter may elect to receive an accelerated payment of the
basic educational assistance allowance otherwise payable to
the individual under section 3015 of this title.
``(b) An individual described in this subsection is an
individual who is--
``(1) enrolled in an approved program of education that
leads to employment in a high technology industry (as
determined pursuant to regulations prescribed by the
Secretary); and
``(2) charged tuition and fees for the program of education
that, when divided by the number of months (and fractions
thereof) in the enrollment period, exceeds the amount equal
to 200 percent of the monthly rate of basic educational
assistance allowance otherwise payable to the individual
under section 3015 of this title.
``(c)(1) The amount of the accelerated payment of basic
educational assistance made to an individual making an
election under subsection (a) for a program of education
shall be the lesser of--
``(A) the amount equal to 60 percent of the established
charges for the program of education; or
``(B) the aggregate amount of basic educational assistance
to which the individual remains entitled under this chapter
at the time of the payment.
``(2) In this subsection, the term `established charges',
in the case of a program of education, means the actual
charges (as determined pursuant to regulations prescribed by
the Secretary) for tuition and fees which similarly
circumstanced nonveterans enrolled in the program of
education would be required to pay. Established charges shall
be determined on the following basis:
``(A) In the case of an individual enrolled in a program of
education offered on a term, quarter, or semester basis, the
tuition and fees charged the individual for the term,
quarter, or semester.
``(B) In the case of an individual enrolled in a program of
education not offered on a term, quarter, or semester basis,
the tuition and fees charged the individual for the entire
program of education.
``(3) The educational institution providing the program of
education for which an accelerated payment of basic
educational assistance allowance is elected by an individual
under subsection (a) shall certify to the Secretary the
amount of the established charges for the program of
education.
``(d) An accelerated payment of basic educational
assistance made to an individual under this section for a
program of education shall be made not later than the last
day of the month immediately following the month in which the
Secretary receives a certification from the educational
institution providing the program of education of the
individual's enrollment in and pursuit of the program of
education.
``(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for each
accelerated payment of basic educational assistance made to
an individual under this section, the individual's
entitlement to basic educational assistance under this
chapter shall be charged the number of months (and any
fraction thereof) determined by dividing the amount of the
accelerated payment by the full-time monthly rate of basic
educational assistance allowance otherwise payable to the
individual under section 3015 of this title as of the
beginning date of the enrollment period for the program of
education for which the accelerated payment is made.
``(2) If the monthly rate of basic educational assistance
allowance otherwise payable to an individual under section
3015 of this title increases during the enrollment period of
a program of education for which an accelerated payment of
basic educational assistance is made under this section, the
individual's entitlement to basic educational assistance
under this chapter shall be charged the number of months (and
any fraction thereof) determined by computing the portion of
the accelerated payment attributable to each monthly rate
that would have payable for the enrollment, dividing each
such portion by the applicable monthly rate, and adding the
results together.
``(f) The Secretary may, pursuant to such regulations as
the Secretary shall prescribe, recover overpayments of basic
educational assistance under this chapter resulting from
accelerated payments of basic educational assistance under
this section.
``(g) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations to carry
out this section. The regulations shall include requirements,
conditions, and methods for electing and using accelerated
payments of basic educational assistance under this section
and for the recovery of overpayments of basic educational
assistance under this chapter resulting from accelerated
payments of basic educational assistance under this
section.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of that chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
3014 the following new item:
``3014A. Accelerated payment of basic educational assistance for
education leading to employment in high technology
industry.''.
(b) Restatement and Expansion of Certain Administrative
Authorities.--Subsection (g) of section 3680 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(g)(1) The Secretary may, pursuant to regulations which
the Secretary shall prescribe, determine and define with
respect to an eligible veteran and eligible person the
following:
``(A) Enrollment in a course or a program of education or
training.
``(B) Pursuit of a course or program of education or
training.
``(C) Attendance at a course or program of education and
training.
``(2) The Secretary may withhold payment of benefits to an
eligible veteran or eligible person until the Secretary
receives such proof as the Secretary may require of
enrollment in and satisfactory pursuit of a program of
education by the eligible veteran or eligible person. The
Secretary shall adjust the payment withheld, when necessary,
on the basis of the proof the Secretary receives.
``(3) In the case of an individual other than an individual
described in paragraph (4), the Secretary may accept the
individual's monthly certification of enrollment in and
satisfactory pursuit of a program of education as sufficient
proof of the certified matters.
``(4) In the case of an individual who has received an
accelerated payment of basic educational assistance under
section 3014A of this title during an enrollment period for a
program of education, the Secretary may accept the
individual's certification of enrollment in and satisfactory
pursuit of the program of education as sufficient proof of
the certified matters if the certification is submitted after
the enrollment period has ended.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect eight months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to
enrollments in courses or programs of education or training
beginning on or after that date.
SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN PRIVATE TECHNOLOGY ENTITIES IN
DEFINITION OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION.
(a) In General.--Sections 3452(c) and 3501(a)(6) of title
38, United States Code, are each amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``Such term also includes any
private entity (that meets such requirements as the Secretary
may establish) that offers, either directly or under an
agreement with another entity (that meets such requirements),
a course or courses to fulfill requirements for the
attainment of a license or certificate generally recognized
as necessary to obtain, maintain, or advance in employment in
a profession or vocation in a high technology occupation (as
determined by the Secretary).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to enrollments in courses occurring on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 1089. A bill to amend section 7253 of title 38, United States
Code, to expand temporarily the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in order to further facilitate staggered terms for
judges on that court, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am today introducing this
legislation which attempts to ensure there will be a sufficient number
of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims so as to
decide the appeals of our Nation's veterans for disability claims. In
addition, this bill would terminate the Notice of Disagreement
requirement in the current law which acts as a bar to appealing cases
to the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, CAVC, originally named
the Court of Veterans' Appeals, was created in 1988 in the Veterans
Judicial Review Act, VJRA, to provide judicial review to veterans'
claims for benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is
comprised of one chief judge and six associate judges.
At the court's inception, the terms for judges on the court were not
staggered. The original chief judge and six associate judges were
appointed to 15-year terms within 16 months of one another from 1989 to
1991. A new judge was appointed in 1997 to fill a vacancy created by
the death of one of the
[[Page S6668]]
originally appointed judges. The chief judge retired in 2000 and his
seat has not yet been filled. By 2005, the terms of five of the
remaining judges will end.
Because the judges' terms were not staggered, it is very likely that
there will be simultaneous vacant seats.
In 1998, Congress attempted to preemptively avoid the crisis of
having only two sitting judges, and the resulting backlog of cases, by
offering some of the original judges an opportunity to retire early.
However, no judges accepted the offer. Therefore, we must again make
the effort to solve this problem. The legislation I am introducing
proposes to do so by allowing two additional judges to be appointed to
full terms, in order to bridge the retirement of the original judges.
Specifically, this bill would temporarily expand the membership of
the court by two judgeships until August 2005, when the last of the
seven original judges' terms will expire. This expansion should give
ample time for the President to nominate and the Senate to confirm
judges for the court, and avoid the potentially damaging effects of a
court with only two judges.
In addition, this bill would terminate the Notice of Disagreement,
NOD, as a jurisdictional requirement for review at the court. The NOD
begins the appellate process within the VA. The veteran usually sends
the NOD to a regional office of the VA, telling the regional office
that he disagrees with the regional office's decision, in whole or
part. This constitutes notice that the veteran is appealing his case to
the Board of Veterans' Appeals. When Congress created the court in
1988, it required claims to have an NOD filed after November 18, 1988,
the date of enactment of the VJRA, in order to be appealed to the CAVC.
This explicit rule was enacted to keep the new court from becoming
overwhelmed with appeals.
However, many difficulties have arisen with this jurisdictional
requirement, due to the complexity of the VA appellate process.
Problems mainly arise in determining what is the applicable NOD when
there are multiple agency decisions and extensive correspondence by the
claimants. Also, many cases originated before November 18, 1988, adding
to the difficulty of determining which NOD confers jurisdiction to the
court. In addition, much litigation has occurred to determine what type
of writing constitutes an NOD, and the type of language that must be
used to construe disagreement over the VA's decision.
While there has been favorable response to the court, the anticipated
floodgates have not opened. Last year the court decided 1,556 claims.
This legislation does not confer jurisdiction upon the court on any
matter not currently within its jurisdiction. Instead, it is meant to
free up the court to determine appeals on the merits. The appellate
process for veterans' claims is long enough without a veteran being
additionally burdened to argue over NODs.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Veterans appeals already take years, sometimes decades. We must do what
we can to avoid increasing the length of the process.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1089
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TEMPORARY EXPANSION OF UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS TO FACILITATE
STAGGERED TERMS OF JUDGES.
(a) In General.--(1) Section 7253 of title 38, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(h) Temporary Expansion of Court.--(1) Notwithstanding
subsection (a) and subject to the provisions of this
subsection, the authorized number of judges of the Court from
the date of the enactment of this subsection until August 15,
2005, is nine judges.
``(2) Of the two additional judges authorized by this
subsection--
``(A) not more than one judge may be appointed pursuant to
a nomination made in 2001 or 2002;
``(B) not more than one judge may be appointed pursuant to
a nomination made in 2003; and
``(C) if a judge is not appointed pursuant to a nomination
made in 2001 or 2002, a nomination made in 2003, or both, the
number of judges not appointed pursuant to either such
nomination, or both, may be appointed pursuant to a
nomination made in 2004, but only if such nomination is made
before September 30, 2004.
``(3) The term of office and eligibility for retirement of
a judge appointed under this subsection, other than a judge
described in paragraph (4), shall be governed by the
provisions of section 1012 of the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims Amendments of 1999 (title X of Public Law
106-117; 113 Stat. 1590; 38 U.S.C. 7296 note) if the judge is
one of the first two judges appointed to the Court after
November 30, 1999.
``(4) A judge of the Court as of the date of the enactment
of this subsection who was appointed before 1991 may accept
appointment as a judge of the Court under this subsection
notwithstanding that the term of office of the judge on the
Court has not yet expired under this section.''.
(2) No appointment may be made under section 7253 of title
38, United States Code, as amended by paragraph (1), if the
appointment would provide for a number of judges (other than
judges serving in recall status under section 7257 of title
38, United States Code) who could serve a complete term on
the Court as of August 15, 2005, in excess of seven judges.
(b) Stylistic Amendments.--That section is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Appointment.--''
before ``The judges'';
(2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Term of Office.--''
before ``The terms'';
(3) in subsection (f), by striking ``(f)(1)'' and inserting
``(f) Removal.--(1)''; and
(4) in subsection (g), by inserting ``Rules.--'' before
``The Court''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR WRITTEN NOTICE REGARDING
ACCEPTANCE OF REAPPOINTMENT AS CONDITION TO
RETIREMENT FROM UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR VETERANS CLAIMS.
Section 7296(b)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by striking the second sentence.
SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF NOTICE OF DISAGREEMENT AS
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS.
(a) Termination.--Section 402 of the Veterans' Judicial
Review Act (division A of Public Law 100-687; 102 Stat. 4122;
38 U.S.C. 7251 note) is repealed.
(b) Attorney Fees.--Section 403 of the Veterans' Judicial
Review Act (102 Stat. 4122; 38 U.S.C. 5904 note) is repealed.
(c) Construction.--The repeal in subsection (a) may not be
construed to confer upon the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims jurisdiction over any appeal or other
matter not within the jurisdiction of the Court as provided
in section 7266(a) of title 38, United States Code.
(d) Applicability.--The repeals made by subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply to--
(1) any appeal filed with the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(2) any appeal pending before the Court on that date, other
than an appeal in which the Court has made a final
disposition under section 7267 of title 38, United States
Code, even though such appeal is not yet final under section
7291(a) of title 38, United States Code.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Specter):
S. 1091. A bill to amend section 1116 of title 38, United States
Code, to modify and extend authorities on the presumption of service-
connection for herbicide-related disabilities of Vietnam era veterans,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today
legislation that would continue to respond to at least some of the
concerns of Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange during their
service to this Nation. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague on
the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Ranking Minority Member Senator Arlen
Specter, and my good friend, Senator Tom Daschle, the Senate majority
leader and a true champion of Vietnam veterans.
In passing the Agent Orange Act of 1991, Congress demonstrated its
commitment to securing fair treatment for veterans enduring long-term
health consequences following their service during the Vietnam war. The
bill before us would continue the systematic scientific reviews that
help us understand these consequences. Provisions in this bill also
would extend the presumptive period for Vietnam veterans suffering from
respiratory cancers and ease the burden on veterans in proving exposure
to Agent Orange.
The Agent Orange Act of 1991 directed the National Academy of
Sciences, NAS, to review scientific evidence on the health effects of
exposure to dioxin and other chemicals found in
[[Page S6669]]
herbicides used in Vietnam. The scientific reviews, there have been
four thus far, have found evidence of connections between exposure to
dioxin and diseases such as respiratory cancers, Type 2 diabetes, and
the birth defect spina bifida, all currently compensated by the VA as
service connected.
These reviews will end after 2002 unless we act now. We simply do not
know enough about the long-term effects of dioxin exposure to say that
the body of scientific evidence is complete. The bill before us would
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to extend the existing
agreement with NAS to provide five more biennial reports.
Currently, title 38 of the United States Code allows Vietnam veterans
with respiratory cancers to claim benefits for this disease as a
service-connected disability, but only if the disease manifested within
30 years of their service in Vietnam. The most recent NAS report
confirmed that there is no scientific basis for assuming that cancers
linked to dioxin exposure would occur within a specific window of time.
The bill that I am introducing would remove this arbitrary limit, and
would restore eligibility for benefits to any Vietnam veterans with
respiratory cancers previously denied due to the cutoff. I recently
learned of the tragic story of Jerry Slusher from Huntington, WV, a
decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam war. While dying of respiratory
cancer in 1999, Jerry filed for benefits and learned that he might have
been eligible, if only he had been diagnosed just a few months earlier.
The men and women who served this Nation, and who struggle with the
consequences of that service so many years later, deserve better.
Lastly, this bill would give all Vietnam veterans the benefit of the
doubt regarding their exposure in Vietnam when claiming benefits for
diseases related to Agent Orange exposure. Due to the difficulties in
determining who might have been exposed to Agent Orange, Congress
determined in 1991 that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should
concede exposure to veterans whose military records indicated that they
served in Vietnam during the Vietnam era. This presumption eased a
veteran's burden in qualifying for service-connected benefits.
VA subsequently interpreted this law to mean that, if a veteran had
served in Vietnam during the war, it should be presumed that the
veteran was exposed to Agent Orange. However, the United States Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims ruled in McCartt v. West (12 Vet. App.
164[1999]) that VA had interpreted the statute too broadly. This ruling
limited the presumption of exposure to Vietnam veterans diagnosed with
one or more of the diseases listed by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, rather than to any disease claimed by a veteran.
As a result, veterans who suffer from diseases not on this list must
go about the difficult task of proving exposure to Agent Orange while
serving in Vietnam, and that the disease resulted from that exposure.
This legislation would restore the presumption of exposure for all
veterans who served in Vietnam during the war.
This bill ensures that the system of scientific review and
determinations for presumptive compensation already in place for
Vietnam veterans will continue. We must address these issues promptly
to continue to assist veterans who have already waited too long for
answers. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting
this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed the
Record as follows:
S. 1091
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES ON THE
PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE-CONNECTION FOR
HERBICIDE-RELATED DISABILITIES OF VIETNAM ERA
VETERANS.
(a) Repeal of 30-Year Limitation on Manifestation of
Respiratory Cancers.--Subsection (a)(2)(F) of section 1116 of
title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking ``within
30 years'' and all that follows through ``May 7, 1975''.
(b) Treatment of Claims Denied Under Limitation on
Manifestation.--(1) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
treat each claim for disability compensation under section
1116 of title 38, United States Code, for a disease covered
by subsection (a)(2)(F) of that section that was denied by
reason of the 30-year limitation on manifestation specified
in that subsection (as that subsection was in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of this Act) as having
been submitted under that section as amended by subsection
(a).
(2) In the case of an award of compensation with respect to
a claim described in paragraph (1)--
(A) the effective date of the award shall be the date on
which the claim would otherwise have been granted had the
limitation referred to in that paragraph not applied to the
claim when originally submitted; and
(B) the amount of compensation payable for the claim for
any month before the date of the enactment of this Act shall
be the amount of disability compensation provided for under
chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, for that month.
(c) Presumption of Exposure to Herbicide Agents in Vietnam
During Vietnam Era.--(1) Section 1116 of title 38, United
States Code, is further amended--
(A) by transferring paragraph (3) of subsection (a) to the
end of the section and redesignating such paragraph, as so
transferred, as subsection (f); and
(B) in subsection (f), as so transferred and redesignated--
(i) by striking ``For the purposes of this subsection, a
veteran'' and inserting ``For purposes of establishing a
service connection for a disability resulting from exposure
to a herbicide agent, including a presumption of service-
connection under this section, a veteran''; and
(ii) by striking ``and has a disease referred to in
paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection''.
(2)(A) The section heading of that section is amended to
read as follows:
``Sec. 1116. Presumptions of service connection for diseases
associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents;
presumption of exposure''.
(B) The table of section at the beginning of chapter 11 of
that title is amended by striking the item relating to
section 1116 and inserting the following new item:
``1116. Presumptions of service connection for diseases associated with
exposure to certain herbicide agents; presumption of
exposure.''.
(d) Extension of Authority To Presume Service-Connection
for Additional Diseases.--(1) Subsection (e) of section 1116
of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking ``10
years'' and inserting ``20 years''.
(2) Section 3(i) of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 (38 U.S.C.
1116 note) is amended by striking ``10 years'' and inserting
``20 years''.
(e) Technical Amendment.--Subsection (a)(2)(F) of section
1116 of title 38, United States Code, as amended by
subsection (a) of this section, is further amended by
inserting ``of disability'' after ``manifest to a degree''.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, and
Mr. Inouye):
S. 1094. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
research, information, and education with respect to blood cancer; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator
Mikulski and Senator Murray to offer legislation on a critical health
research issue. When I first started looking into the Federal
commitment to these deadly blood cancers, leukemia, lymphoma, and
multiple myeloma, I was frankly astonished to learn that, despite the
fact that these cancers account for 11 percent of all cancer deaths in
the U.S., they receive less than 5 percent of the research funding from
the National Cancer Institute.
That is why I would like to offer legislation today that would
authorize an additional $250 million in research at the National
Institutes of Health next year, and at least that amount in subsequent
years. The bill also contains the specific authorization of $25 million
next year to expand public education, outreach, and early detection
programs for three of these deadly blood cancers.
It is my hope and my expectation that this legislation will serve to
focus additional resources on these diseases, as well as to help expand
the public's awareness of how deadly and pervasive they can be.
I commend the Senators from Maryland and Washington for their support
on this issue and urge other Senators to join us in this effort.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1094
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S6670]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Hematological Cancer
Research Investment and Education Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that:
(1) An estimated 109,500 people in the United States will
be diagnosed with leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma in
2001.
(2) New cases of the blood cancers described in paragraph
(1) account for 8.6 percent of new cancer cases.
(3) Those devastating blood cancers will cause the deaths
of an estimated 60,300 persons in the United States in 2001.
Every 9 minutes, a person in the United States dies from
leukemia, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma.
(4) While less than 5 percent of Federal funds for cancer
research are spent on those blood cancers, those blood
cancers cause 11 percent of all cancer deaths in the United
States.
(5) Increased Federal support of research into leukemia,
lymphoma, and multiple myeloma has resulted and will continue
to result in significant advances in the early detection, the
treatment, and ultimately the cure of those blood cancers.
SEC. 3. RESEARCH, INFORMATION, AND EDUCATION WITH RESPECT TO
BLOOD CANCER.
(a) Research.--Part B of title IV of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 409I. RESEARCH, INFORMATION, AND EDUCATION WITH
RESPECT TO BLOOD CANCER.
``(a) Research.--
``(1) Subject.--The Director of the National Institutes of
Health shall establish and carry out a program for the
conduct and support of research with respect to blood cancer,
and particularly with respect to leukemia, lymphoma, and
multiple myeloma.
``(2) Administration.--The Director of the National
Institutes of Health shall carry out this subsection through
the Director of the National Cancer Institute and in
collaboration with any other agencies that the Director of
the National Institutes of Health determines to be
appropriate.
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $250,000,000
for fiscal year 2002 and each subsequent fiscal year.
``(b) Information and Education.--
``(1) Subject.--The Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention shall establish and carry out a
program to provide information and education for the general
public with respect to blood cancer, and particularly with
respect to leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $25,000,000
for fiscal year 2002 and each subsequent fiscal year.''.
____________________