[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3166-S3172]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 2222. A bill to resolve certain conveyances and provide for
alternative land selections under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act related to Cape Fox Corporation and Sealaska Corporation, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will address an equity issue for one of Alaska'a rural village
corporations.
[[Page S3167]]
Cape Fox Corporation is an Alaska Village Corporation organized
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, by the
Native Village of Saxman, near Ketchikan, AK. As with other ANCSA
village corporations in Southeast Alaska, Cape Fox was limited to
selecting 23,040 acres under Section 16 of ANCSA. However, unlike other
village corporations, Cape Fox was further restricted from selecting
lands within six miles of the boundary of the home rule City of
Ketchikan. All other ANCSA corporations were restricted from selecting
within two miles of such a home rule city.
The six mile restriction went beyond protecting Ketchikan's watershed
and damaged Cape Fox by preventing the corporation from selecting
valuable timber lands, industrial sites, and other commercial property,
not only in its core township but in surrounding lands far removed from
Ketchikan and its watershed. As a result of the six mile restriction,
only the mountainous northeast corner of Cape Fox's core township,
which is nonproductive and of no economic value, was available for
selection by the corporation. Under ANCSA, however, Cape Fox was
required to select this parcel.
Cape Fox's land selections were further limited by the fact that the
Annette Island Indian Reservation is within its selection area, and
those lands were unavailable for ANCSA selection. Cape Fox is the only
ANCSA village corporation affected by this restriction.
Clearly, Cape Fox was placed on unequal economic footing relative to
other village corporations in Southeast Alaska. Despite its best
efforts during the years since ANCSA was signed into law, Cape Fox has
been unable to overcome the disadvantage the law built into its land
selection opportunities by this inequitable treatment.
To address the inequity, I have introduced the ``Cape Fox Land
Entitlement Adjustment Act of 2002.'' This bill will address the Cape
Fox problem by providing three interrelated remedies.
1. The obligation of Cape Fox to select and seek conveyance of the
approximately 160 acres of unusable land in the mountainous northeast
corner of Cape Fox's core township will be annulled.
2. Cape Fox will be allowed to select and the Secretary of
Agriculture will be directed to convey 99 acres of timber land adjacent
to Cape Fox's current holdings on Revilla Island.
3. Cape Fox and the Secretary of Agriculture will be authorized to
enter into an equal value exchange of lands in southeast Alaska that
will be of mutual benefit to the Corporation and the U.S. Forest
Service. Lands conveyed to Cape Fox in this exchange will not be
timberlands, but will be associated with a mining property containing
existing Federal mining claims, some of which are patented. Lands
anticipated to be returned to Forest Service ownership will be of
wildlife habitat value and will consolidate Forest Service holdings in
the George Inlet area of Revilla Island. The Forest Service supports
the transfer of these lands back to Federal ownership.
The land exchange provisions of this bill will help rectify the long-
standing inequities associated with restrictions placed on Cape Fox in
ANCSA. It will help allow this Native village corporation to make the
transition from its major dependence on timber harvest to a more
diversified portfolio of income-producing lands.
The bill also provides for the resolution of a long-standing land
ownership problem within the Tongass National Forest. The predominant
private landowner in the region, Sealaska Corporation, holds the
subsurface estate on several thousand acres of National Forest System
lands. This split estate poses a management problem which the Forest
Service has long sought to resolve. Efforts to address this issue go
back more than a decade. Provisions in the Cape Fox Land Entitlement
Adjustment Act of 2002 will allow the agency to consolidate its surface
and subsurface estate and greatly enhance its management effectiveness
and efficiency in the Tongass National Forest.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
S. 2223. A bill to provide for the duty-free entry of certain tramway
cars for use by the city of Portland, Oregon; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
extend an import duty suspension for the Central City Streetcar in the
City of Portland, OR. The City of Portland purchases the streetcars
from a manufacturer in the Czech Republic. Previous streetcar shipments
were duty-free under legislation granting special status to the
exporting nation, the Czech Republic. The City has ordered two new
streetcars which will be shipped on May 1, 2002. However, that duty-
free exemption has expired, adding $130,000 to the price of these
streetcars. This legislation will provide duty-free entry for those two
streetcars ordered by the City of Portland, thus saving the City of
Portland $130,000.
I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith,
in introducing this bipartisan legislation to provide this duty
suspension for the City of Portland's Central City Streetcar. I urge
all my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 2227. A bill to clarify the effective date of the modification of
treatment for retirement annuity purposes of part-time services before
April 7, 1986, of certain Department of Veterans Affairs health-care
professionals; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to fix
a long-standing inequity.
Last December, Congress passed the Department of Veterans Affairs
Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001. Enacted as Public Law
107-135, this legislation gave VA several tools to respond to the
looming nurse crisis. In addition, it altered how part-time service
performed by certain title 38 employees would be considered when
granting retirement credit.
Previously, the law required that title 38 employees' part-time
services prior to April 7, 1986, be prorated when calculating
retirement annuities, resulting in lower annuities for these employees.
Section 132 of the VA Health Programs Enhancement Act was intended to
exempt all previously retired registered nurses, physician assistants,
and expanded-function dental auxiliaries from this requirement.
However, the Office of Personnel Management has interpreted this
provision to only apply to those health care professionals who retire
after its enactment date.
The legislation I introduce today would require OPM to comply with
the original intent of the VA Health Programs Enhancement Act, and
therefore to recalculate the annuities for these retired health care
professionals. This clarification would not extend retirement benefits
retroactively to the date of retirement, but would ensure that
annuities are calculated fairly from now on for eligible employees who
retired between April 7, 1986, and January 23, 2002.
I ask my colleagues to join me in restoring our original legislative
intent to this issue of fairness for retired VA health care
professionals, and 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. 2227
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE OF MODIFICATION OF TREATMENT FOR
RETIREMENT ANNUITY PURPOSES OF CERTAIN PART-
TIME SERVICE OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONALS.
(a) Effective Date.--The effective date of the amendment
made by section 132 of the Department of Veterans Affairs
Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-
135; 115 Stat. 2454) shall be as follows:
(1) January 23, 2002, in the case of health care
professionals referred to in subsection (c) of section 7426
of title 38, United States Code (as so amended), who retire
on or after that date.
(2) The date of the enactment of this Act, in the case of
health care professionals referred to in such subsection (c)
who retired before January 23, 2002, but after April 7, 1986.
(b) Recomputation of Annuity.--The Office of Personnel
Management shall recompute the annuity of each health-care
professional described in the first sentence of subsection
(c) of section 7426 of title 38, United States Code (as so
amended), who retired before January 23, 2002, but after
April 7, 1986,
[[Page S3168]]
in order to take into account the amendment made by section
132 of the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care
Programs Enhancement Act of 2001. Such recomputation shall be
effective only with respect to annuities paid after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply beginning the
first day of the first month beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 2228. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to operate up to 15 centers for
mental illness research, education, and clinical activities; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to
allow researchers and clinicians in the Department of Veterans Affairs
to establish up to ten more centers to study and treat mental
illnesses.
Historically, as many as one-third of veterans seeking care at VA
have received mental health treatment, and research suggests that
serious mental illnesses affect at least one-fifth of veterans who use
the VA health care system. About 450,000 of the approximately 2.3
million veterans who receive compensation from VA have service-
connected psychiatric and neurological disorders. These statistics do
not reflect problems that affect veterans alone: in 1999, the Surgeon
General of the United States reported that mental disorders account for
more than 15 percent of the overall burden of disease from all causes,
slightly more than all forms of cancer. Major depression alone ranked
second only to heart disease in impact.
In 1996, Congress authorized VA to establish five centers dedicated
to mental illness research, education, and clinical activities. These
Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Centers, called
``MIRECCs'' by VA, integrate basic and clinical research with a
training mission that allows VA to translate new findings into improved
patient care. Research undertaken within these centers has helped to
increase our fundamental understanding of mental illnesses, and has
given VA caregivers more and better tools to treat patients with mental
disorders so they can function more easily within their communities.
Because they have proved so effective at fostering scientific,
clinical, and educational improvements in mental health care, I have
introduced legislation today that would allow VA to expand the number
of these centers from the five authorized programs to a possible total
of fifteen. Based on the programs' success, VA researchers have already
started three more centers, expanding the number of existing programs
to eight, and have demonstrated their willingness to open more in the
near future. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
expansion of this program, which benefits not only veterans but the
entire mental health care community.
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. 2228
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO
OPERATE ADDITIONAL CENTERS FOR MENTAL ILLNESS
RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CLINICAL ACTIVITIES.
Section 7320(b)(3) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``five centers'' and inserting ``15
centers''.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (by request):
S. 2229. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize a
cost-of-living increase in rates of disability compensation and
dependency and indemnity compensation, and to revise the requirement
for maintaining levels of extended-care services to veterans; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation
requested by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as a courtesy to the
Secretary and the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. Except in unusual
circumstances, it is my practice to introduce legislation requested by
the Administration so that such measures will be available for review
and consideration.
This ``by-request'' bill contains two sections. The first would
authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase
administratively the rates of compensation for service-disabled
veterans, and for the dependent survivors of veterans whose deaths were
service-related, beginning this December. The rate of increase, as
requested by VA in its proposed budget for FY 2003, would be the same
as the cost-of-living adjustment provided under current law to
veterans' pension and Social Security recipients.
The second section of this bill would allow VA to change the way that
it calculates the number of veterans receiving VA long-term care. In
1999, Congress passed the Veterans Millennium Health Care Benefits Act,
which required VA to maintain the level of extended care services
offered to veterans at the 1998 level. VA has argued that this law,
based on the average daily census in VA-operated nursing homes,
unfairly ignores care provided through contracts with private nursing
homes and by VA-subsidized State nursing homes. The requested bill
would amend the law to include nursing home care furnished by community
providers and State veterans homes when determining whether VA has
maintained extended care services at the mandated 1998 level.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and Secretary
Principi's transmittal letter that accompanied the draft legislation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2229
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES TO TITLE 38, UNITED STATES
CODE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans
Benefits Improvement Act of 2002''.
(b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided,
whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, 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.
TITLE I--INCREASE IN COMPENSATION RATES AND LIMITATIONS
SEC. 101. INCREASE IN COMPENSATION RATES AND LIMITATIONS.
(a) Rate Adjustment.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall, effective on December 1, 2002, increase the dollar
amounts in effect for the payment of disability compensation
and dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) by the
Secretary, as specified in subsection (b).
(b) Amounts To Be Increased.--The dollar amounts to be
increased pursuant to subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Compensation.--The dollar amounts in effect under
section 1114 of title 38, United States Code.
(2) Additional compensation for dependents.--The dollar
amounts in effect under section 1115(1) of such title.
(3) Clothing allowance.--The dollar amount in effect under
section 1162 of such title.
(4) New dic rates.--The dollar amounts in effect under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1311(a) of such title.
(5) Old dic rates.--The dollar amounts in effect under
paragraph (3) of section 1311(a) of such title.
(b) Additional dic for surviving spouses with minor
children.--The dollar amount in effect under section 1311(b)
of such title.
(7) Additional dic for disability.--The dollar amounts in
effect under sections 1311(c) and 1311(d) of such title.
(8) DIC for dependent children.--The dollar amounts in
effect under sections 1313(a) and 1314 of such title.
(c) Determination of increase.--(1) The increase under
subsection (a) shall be made in the dollar amounts specified
in subsection (b) as in effect on November 30, 2002.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), each such amount
shall be increased by the same percentage as the percentage
by which benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) are increased
effective December 1, 2002, as a result of a determination
under section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)).
(3) Each dollar amount increased pursuant to paragraph (2)
shall, if not a whole dollar amount, be rounded down to the
next lower whole dollar amount.
(d) Special Rule.--The Secretary may adjust
administratively, consistent with the increases made under
subsection (a), the rates of disability compensation payable
to persons within the purview of section 101 of Public Law
85-857 (72 Stat. 1263) who are not in receipt of compensation
payable pursuant to chapter 11 of title 38, United States
Code.
(e) Publication Requirement.--At the same time as the
matters specified in section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) are required to be
published by reason of a determination made
[[Page S3169]]
under section 215(i) of such Act during fiscal year 2003, the
Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the amounts
specified in subsection (b) as increased under this section.
TITLE II--HEALTH MATTERS
SEC. 201. NURSING HOME STAFFING LEVELS.
Section 1710B(b) is amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1) The Secretary shall ensure that the staffing and
level of extended care services, excluding nursing home care,
provided by the Secretary nationally in facilities of the
Department during any fiscal year is not less than the
staffing and level of such services provided nationally in
facilities of the Department during fiscal year 1998.
``(2) The Secretary shall ensure that the average daily
census in nursing homes over which the Secretary has direct
jurisdiction, plus the average daily census of veterans
placed by the Secretary in community nursing homes pursuant
to a contract, plus the average daily census of veterans for
which the Secretary pays per diem to States for nursing home
care in a State nursing home, is not less in total than in
fiscal year 1998.''.
____
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Washington, April 18, 2002.
Hon. Richard B. Cheney,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a draft bill containing two
very important components of the President's FY 2003 budget
request for the Department of Veterans Affairs: legislation
to (1) authorize a cost of living increase in rates of
disability compensation and dependency and indemnity
compensation, and (2) revise the requirement for maintaining
levels of extended-care services to veterans. I request that
this bill be referred to the appropriate committee for prompt
consideration and enactment.
Section 101 of the draft bill would direct the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to increase administratively the rates of
compensation for service-disabled veterans and of dependency
and indemnity compensation (DIC) for the survivors of
veterans whose deaths are service related, effective December
1, 2002. As provided in the President's FY 2003 budget
request, the rate of increase would be the same as the cost-
of-living adjustment (COLA) that will be provided under
current law to veterans' pension and Social Security
recipients, which is currently estimated to be 1.8 percent.
We estimate that enactment of this section would cost $279
million during FY 2003, $1.66 billion over the period FY
2003-2007 and $3.45 billion over the period FY 2003-2012.
Although this section is subject to the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO)
requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
(OBRA), the PAYGO effect would be zero because OBRA requires
that the full compensation COLA be assumed in the baseline.
We believe this proposed COLA is necessary and appropriate in
order to protect the benefits of affected veterans and their
survivors from the eroding effects of inflation. These worthy
beneficiaries deserve no less.
Section 201 of the draft bill would amend section 1710B(b)
of title 38, United States Code, to revise the statutory
requirement that the Secretary continue to provide veterans
with extended care services at 1998 levels. Current law,
established in the 1999 Veterans Millennium and Health Care
Benefits Act, requires VA to maintain the staffing and level
of extended care services provided by the Department
nationally in facilities of the Department at levels not less
than the staffing and level of such services provided
nationally during FY 1998. We propose to amend the law as
it applies to nursing home care to allow VA to also count
nursing home care VA procures in the community, and
supports in State nursing homes, when determining whether
the Department is maintaining its level of effort in
providing such care.
For more than 30 years, VA has provided veterans with
nursing home care through contracts with private sector
nursing homes and by paying states per diem for nursing home
care furnished in State nursing homes. Of the total amount of
VA-supported nursing home care in FY 2000, VA furnished
approximately thirty-eight percent directly in VA-operated,
nursing homes. VA supported approximately twelve percent
through contracts with private nursing homes, and fifty
percent through care furnished in State nursing homes.
VA also provides up to sixty-five percent of the cost of
construction of State nursing homes. That has encouraged the
expansion of the State Home Program to the point that there
are currently 108 such homes nationwide. The availability of
the State Home Program and the contract program has improved
veterans' access to nursing home care, and has provided
veterans with greater choice to meet both clinical needs and
preferences of placement near family. We believe it is
appropriate and these two sources of nursing home care be
counted when assessing the effort VA puts into nursing home
care.
Increasing the FY 2002 average daily census in VA nursing
homes to 1998 levels would require us to divert to that
program large amount of funds VA currently devotes to other
health-care purposes, including payments for community
nursing-home care, and grants to construct State nursing
homes. However, as stated above, the community and State
nursing home programs enable VA to offer veterans both choice
and access to care closer to loved ones, values that VA does
not want to jeopardize. Using other extended care funds to
immediately move to achieve 1998 levels could jeopardize the
excellent mix of those other services that VA now offers. The
Department now provides veterans a balanced program of
extended care services that best meets their needs. It would
greatly disserve veterans to dramatically shift funding to
meet the strictures of the current requirement for provision
of care in VA-operated nursing homes, particularly when the
cost of contract nursing homes care is significantly less
than the cost of providing care in VA facilities.
Enactment of our proposal would permit us to continue the
overall FY 1998 level of effort for this care as measured by
average daily census, without the need to divert an estimated
$161.2 million by the end of FY 2004 from resources which
would otherwise be available to meet other critical health-
care needs.
We are advised by the Office of Management and Budget that
there is no objection to the transmittal of this draft bill
to the Congress and its enactment would be in accord with the
program of the President.
Sincerely yours,
Anthony J. Principi.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 2230. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to make
permanent the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
guarantee adjustable rate mortgages, to authorize the guarantee of
hybrid adjustable rate mortgages, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
comment briefly on legislation I am introducing which will help many
veterans achieve the dream of home ownership. The legislation would
permit the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to guarantee adjustable
rate mortgage, ARM, loans as part of its loan guaranty program. The
legislation would also give VA the authority to guarantee a relatively
new type of ARM financing, ``hybird'' ARM loans. Hybrid ARM's provide a
fixed rate of interest during the first three to ten years of the loan,
and an annual interest rate adjustment thereafter. Both conventional
ARM's and hybrid ARM's would expand the financing options available to
veterans, options which are currently available under Federal Housing
Administration, FHA, insured loan programs for non-veterans.
The VA loan guaranty benefit has helped millions of active duty
service members and veterans to purchase homes without a down payment.
VA currently provides a guaranty only on loans applying a fixed rate of
interest over a thirty year period, so-called ``30-year conventional''
loans. While a 30-year conventional loan makes sense for some home
buyers, it does not provide the flexibility others need given differing
personal circumstances. ARM loans and hybrid ARM loans provide that
flexibility.
Traditional ARM and hybrid ARM loans provide flexibility by offering
lower rates of interest during an initial period, one year for
traditional ARM's and three, five, seven, or ten years for hybrid
ARM's, as compared to 30-year conventional rates. Lower rates translate
into lower monthly payments, often making a home more affordable and
permitting home buyers to qualify for loans. In addition, hybrid ARM's
have another attractive aspect in that they provide the security of a
lower interest rate for a fixed number of years prior to the annual
adjustment period. Service members and veterans who know beforehand
they will be moving out of their homes in a set number of years may
find hybrid ARM's make financial sense given their circumstances. While
home buyers must be prudent in choosing to use ARM financing,
foreclosing the option to veterans, in my estimation, smacks of
paternalism. ARM loans are insured by FHA; my legislation would simply
apply to the VA loan guaranty program a principle already embraced by
FHA and the commercial lending sector: one type of financing does not
meet all home buyer needs.
This bill would also extend certain protections to veterans who use
ARM financing. During an annual interest rate adjustment period, rates
would not be permitted to increase more than one percent. Further,
interest rates would not be permitted to exceed more than five
percentage points above the initial fixed rate. These are standards
that have evolved in the marketplace over the past 20 years; veterans,
like other home purchasers, should gain the benefit of these
protections
[[Page S3170]]
The VA supports the addition of an ARM option to its loan guaranty
program. It administered a successful, and popular, ARM pilot program
in the mid 1990's; the program was so popular that ARM's constituted up
to 21 percent in 1995, of VA-guaranteed home loans. Unfortunately,the
program was not reauthorized by Congress. The time has arrived to
rectify that oversight. I ask my colleagues for their support.
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. 2230
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO
GUARANTEE ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGES AND HYBRID
ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGES.
(a) Permanent Authority To Guarantee Adjustable Rate
Mortgages.--Subsection (a) of section 3707 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a) The Secretary may guarantee adjustable rate mortgages
for veterans eligible for housing loan benefits under this
chapter.''.
(b) Authority To Guarantee Hybrid Adjustable Rate
Mortgages.--That section is further amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``Interest rate
adjustment provisions'' and inserting ``Except as provided in
subsection (c)(1), interest rate adjustment provisions'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection (c):
``(c) Adjustable rate mortgages that may be guaranteed
under this section include adjustable rate mortgages
(commonly referred to as `hybrid adjustable rate mortgages')
having interest rate adjustment provisions that--
``(1) are not subject to subsection (b)(1);
``(2) specify an initial rate of interest that is fixed for
a period of not less than the first three years of the
mortgage term;
``(3) provide for an initial adjustment in the rate of
interest by the mortgagee at the end of the period described
in paragraph (2); and
``(4) comply in such initial adjustment, and any subsequent
adjustment, with paragraphs (2) through (4) of subsection
(b).''.
(c) Implementation of Authority To Guarantee Hybrid
Adjustable Rate Mortgages.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
may exercise the authority under section 3707 of title 38,
United States Code, as amended by this section, to guarantee
adjustable rate mortgages described in subsection (c) of such
section 3707, as so amended, in advance of any rulemaking
otherwise required to implement such authority.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 2231. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide an
incremental increase in amounts of educational assistance for survivors
and dependents of veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment
briefly on legislation I have introduced today which would increase
educational assistance benefits for two highly worthy groups: survivors
of service members who were killed on active duty or who died after
service as consequence of service-related disabilities; and immediate
family members of veterans who survived service but who are living with
permanent and total disabilities.
No one can doubt that spouses and children of service-deceased
members of the armed forces are worthy of our Nation's gratitude. No
less worthy are those whose veteran-spouse returned from service in a
profoundly disabled state and, in many cases, later died as a direct
result of that same disability. It is entirely proper that the Nation
provide these worthy people with sufficient educational assistance
benefits to offset the loss of support that would have been provided by
the veteran but for his or her service-related wounds.
The legislation I introduce today would increase the rate of monthly
Survivors' and Dependents' Education Assistance, DEA, benefits from
$670 to $985. The increase would be phased in over a two-year period,
and would reflect the same phased-in increase provided to veterans
eligible for Montgomery GI Bill, MGIB, benefits under Public Law 107-
103, the recently-enacted ``Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion
Act of 2001.'' Under my bill, DEA benefits would first increase from
$670 to $900 per month on October 1, 2002, and to $985 per month on
October 1, 2003. In addition, the legislation would equalize with MGIB
benefits the number of months, at 36, an eligible person would be
allowed to use his or her benefit.
This legislation would create parity between DEA and MGIB monthly
benefits as recommended by a recent Department of Veterans Affairs, VA,
program evaluation. Both programs would provide an aggregate of $35,460
worth of education benefits. Thus, both veterans and survivors would
have the resources necessary to meet the average cost of tuition, fees,
room, and board at four-year, public institutions of higher learning.
As was stated by VA's Deputy Secretary, Dr. Leo Mackay, in connection
with a Committee on Veterans Affairs hearing on June 28, 2001, VA
``believe[s] it is only fair that these benefits should be at the same
level as those provided to veterans.'' VA estimates that a monthly
benefit at that level will entice 90% of eligible persons to use the
benefit.
In addition to increasing DEA benefits, the legislation I have
introduced today would provide a $4 million funding increase for State
Approving Agencies, SAA, State educational program certifying offices
which are funded by VA grants. These offices protect the integrity of
VA educational assistance and job-training programs and protect
veterans and survivors, and, not unimportantly, taxpayers, from
fraudulent ``providers'' of education and training opportunities. Since
1989, funding for SAAs has been nearly flat, but SAA responsibilities
have grown. Most recently, Public Law 107-103 tasked the SAAs with
veteran and servicemember outreach in each state, and expanded the
scope of education programs which SAAs must review and approve. My
legislation would provide an increase, from $14 million to $18 million
in fiscal year 2003, to address the loss of purchasing power absorbed
by SAAs over the last decade, and to adequately fund the additional
responsibilities SAAs have been given.
I hope there will be unanimous support for this legislation. Our
troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere need to know that if they die or
are seriously injured on the battlefield, their loved ones will be
cared for. This legislation will assure that survivors' needs in the
critical area of education will be met.
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. 2231
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 ``Survivors' and Dependents'
Educational Assistance Adjustment Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN RATES OF SURVIVORS' AND
DEPENDENTS' EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance.--
Section 3532 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``at the monthly rate
of'' and all that follows and inserting ``at the monthly rate
of--
``(A) for months occurring during fiscal year 2003, $900
for full-time, $676 for three-quarter-time, or $450 for half-
time pursuit; and
``(B) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal year,
$985 for full-time, $740 for three-quarter-time, or $492 for
half-time pursuit.''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``at the rate of'' and
all that follows and inserting ``at the rate of the lesser
of--
``(A) the established charges for tuition and fees that the
educational institution involved requires similarly
circumstanced nonveterans enrolled in the same program to
pay; or
``(B)(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2003, $900
per month for a full-time course; or (ii) for months
occurring during a subsequent fiscal year, $985 per month for
a full-time course.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``at the rate of'' and
all that follows and inserting ``at the rate of--
``(1) for months occurring during fiscal year 2003, $900
per month; and
``(2) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal year,
$985 per month.''; and
(3) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``shall be'' and all
that follows and inserting ``shall be--
``(A) for months occurring during fiscal year 2003, $727
for full-time, $545 for three-quarter-time, or $364 for half-
time pursuit; and
``(B) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal year,
$795 for full-time, $596 for three-quarter-time, or $398 for
half-time pursuit.''.
[[Page S3171]]
(b) Correspondence Courses.--Section 3534(b) of that title
is amended by striking ``for each $670'' and all that follows
and inserting ``for each amount which is paid to the spouse
as an educational assistance allowance for such course as
follows:
``(1) For amounts paid during fiscal year 2003, $900.
``(2) For amounts paid during a subsequent fiscal year,
$985.''.
(c) Special Restorative Training.--Section 3542(a) of that
title is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
(2) by designating the second sentence as paragraph (2) and
indenting such paragraph, as so designated, two ems from the
left margin;
(3) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by striking ``the
basic rate of $670 per month.'' and inserting ``the basic
rate of--
``(A) for months occurring during fiscal year 2003, $900
per month; and
``(B) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal year,
$985 per month.''; and
(4) in paragraph (2), as so designated--
(A) by striking ``$184 per calendar month'' and inserting
``$282 per calendar month for months occurring during fiscal
year 2003, or $307 per calendar months for months occurring
during a subsequent fiscal year''; and
(B) by striking ``$184 a month'' and inserting ``$282 a
month for months occurring during fiscal year 2003, or $307 a
month for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal year''.
(d) Apprenticeship Training.--Section 3687(b)(2) of that
title is amended by striking ``shall be $488 for the first
six months'' and all that follows and inserting ``shall be--
``(A) $655 for the first six months, $490 for the second
six months, $325 for the third six months, and $164 for the
fourth and any succeeding six-month period of training, if
such six-month period of training begins during fiscal year
2003; and
``(B) $717 for the first six months, $536 for the second
six months, $356 for the third six months, and $179 for the
fourth and any succeeding six-month period of training, if
such six-month period of training begins during a subsequent
fiscal year.''.
(e) Effective Date.--(1) The amendments made by this
section shall take effect as of October 1, 2003, and shall
apply with respect to educational assistance allowances
payable under chapter 35 and section 3687(b)(2) of title 38,
United States Code, for months beginning on or after that
date.
(2) No adjustment in rates of monthly training allowances
shall be made under section 3687(d) of title 38, United
States Code, for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF DURATION OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 3511(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``45 months'' and all that follows and
inserting ``45 months, or 36 months in the case of a person
who first files a claim for educational assistance under this
chapter after the date of the enactment of the Survivors' and
Dependents' Educational Assistance Adjustment Act of 2002, or
to the equivalent thereof in part-time training.''.
SEC. 4. INCREASE IN AGGREGATE ANNUAL AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR
STATE APPROVING AGENCIES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES.
(a) Increase in Amount.--Section 3674(a)(4) of title 38,
United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``may not exceed $13,000,000'' and all that follows
through the end and inserting ``may not exceed
$18,000,000.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2002.
______
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Specter, Mrs. Carnahan, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Cleland):
S. 2233. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
establish a medicare subvention demonstration project for veterans; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce
the Medicare Equity for Veterans Act of 2002 with Senators Rockefeller,
Jeffords, Specter, Carnahan, Snowe, and Cleland. This legislation,
known as Medicare Subvention, will require the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, (CMS), to reimburse VA facilities for services
provided to certain Medicare-eligible veterans. These servicemen and
women have paid into the Medicare system over the course of their
careers, just as every other American has done, but are prohibited from
utilizing the program when treated at a VA facility. It is only fair
that they be allowed to use their Medicare coverage in the private
sector or at a VA facility.
The number of veterans enrolled in the VA health system has more than
doubled since 1996. In many VA facilities, Medicare-eligible veterans,
called Priority 7 or Category C veterans, compose the largest increase
in patient caseloads. At the VA facility in Cheyenne, WY, only 131
Priority 7 veterans were treated in fiscal year 1997. However, in
fiscal year 2001 the same facility treated over 2,200 Priority 7
veterans. Clearly, the VA is experiencing substantial growth and even
more obvious is the fact that veterans want to receive their health
care services at a VA facility. Unfortunately, funding for the VA
health care system has not kept pace. In my state, Medicare Subvention
would expand access to services as most communities are designated
primary care health professional shortage areas. Private sector
physicians and other primary care providers are not as readily
available as they are in other part of the country, which means that
the VA is sometimes the only option.
Specifically, the Medicare Equity for Veterans Act of 2002
establishes a three-year demonstration program at ten VA sites, three
of which must be in rural areas. The Secretaries of VA and HHS may
either choose Medicare+Choice or Preferred Provider Option model for
the sites. These options give the Secretaries flexibility to determine
which model works best for each particular site--ensuring veterans
receive quality and timely care.
The VA can provide Medicare covered services more efficiently and
cost effectively than the private sector, which could potentially save
the Medicare program money. Under the Preferred Provider Option, the VA
would be reimbursed at 95 percent of the comparable private sector rate
and 100 percent of the Medicare+Choice applicable rate, after excluding
such targeted private hospital adjustments as Medicare Disproportionate
Share Hospital payments, Graduate Medical Education, Indirect Medical
Education and capital-related costs.
The VA will be responsible for continuing to pay for services
provided to Medicare-eligible veterans who have been treated prior to
fiscal year 1998. This ensures a good faith effort on the part of the
VA, but will also allow the agency to immediately begin billing
Medicare for services provided to Medicare-eligible veterans after
fiscal year 1998. Additionally, this bill protects the Medicare Trust
Fund by capping Medicare payments to the VA at $75 million a year for
the duration of the three-year demonstration.
Prior to the end of the demonstration, the Government Accounting
Office, GAO, must conduct a thorough program evaluation. The GAO report
ensures the demonstration met its goal of providing quality and cost
effective care to our nation's veterans. The GAO is further required to
provide specific recommendations to the Secretaries of VA and HHS on
how best to expand Medicare Subvention nationwide.
Veterans deserve quality, efficient and equitable health care
treatment. Enactment of this legislation is the first step toward
attaining that goal. I urge all my colleagues to consider cosponsoring
the Medicare Equity for Veterans Act of 2002.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators
Thomas and Jeffords to introduce the Medicare Equity for Veterans Act
of 2002. This bill will authorize a demonstration project to allow VA
to bill Medicare for health care services provided to certain dual
eligible beneficiaries. The legislation, known as VA subvention, is a
concept that has been discussed over the years by many of us in
Congress, by veterans service organizations, and by advisory bodies
studying the VA health care system. Although the VA subvention proposal
is a small effort compared to the other changes that must be made to
the Medicare program, it is enormously important to our veterans and
the health care system they depend upon.
Until recently, when we looked at the VA health care budget, we
focused on the declining veteran population and declining demand. We
are in a totally different predicament today. More and more veterans
are turning to the VA health care system, and that is a success story.
More than 38 percent of all veterans are Medicare eligible;
unfortunately, many of these veterans are seeking VA care because of
the lack of drug benefits in the Medicare program. An uncertain economy
and the collapse of many HMOs have also contributed to the rising
number of veterans turning to VA. While I will continue to push for
Medicare prescription drug benefits, something must be done to
alleviate the pressure on the VA health care system. VA simply does not
have unlimited resources to meet this demand.
[[Page S3172]]
VA now has more than 6 million veterans enrolled in health care
services. That's more than double the figure in 1996. Not surprisingly,
access to care has been affected by the high demand for services. It is
not unusual for some veterans in certain pockets of the country to have
to wait for more than a year to have their initial appointment with a
VA primary care physician. Because of concerns about access and quality
of care, last fall the VA was prepared to cease enrolling new higher
income veterans, so called Category C or Priority 7 veterans, into the
VA health care system. Their decision was based simply upon budgetary
constraints, as VA suffered from a $400 million shortfall. Except for a
last minute approval of supplemental funding, veterans would have been
turned away from VA health care services.
This legislation would allow VA and HHS to either choose a Medi-
care+Choice or Preferred Provider Option at ten VA sites, three of
these sites must be in rural areas. Several years ago the Department of
Defense attempted a Medicare subvention pilot and lost money, primarily
on the restrictive nature of the capitation model they set up. This
proposal will give VA the opportunity to look at both the preferred
provider and Medicare+Choice model, and in the end select the model
that works best for them.
For veterans, approval of this veterans subvention would mean the
infusion of new revenue to their health care system and, thus, greater
access to care. For the Department of Health and Human Services, a VA
subvention demonstration project will provide the opportunity to assess
the effects of coordination on improving efficiency, access, and
quality of care for dual-eligible beneficiaries. In addition, it would
also present an opportunity to reduce Medicare expenditures. Under the
Medicare+Choice option in our legislation, the reimbursable rate will
be 100 percent of the rate normally paid to a Medicare+Choice provider.
However, under the Preferred Provider Option, reimbursement rates would
be 95 percent of otherwise applicable rates. For both options the rates
would be further discounted by excluding Disproportionate Hospital
Share adjustments, VA's direct graduate medical education costs, its
indirect medical education costs, and 67 percent of capital-related
costs. As a further way to limit exposure to the Trust Fund during the
three year demonstration portion of this bill, this proposal caps all
Medicare payments to the VA at $75 million per year. Allowing VA to
bill Medicare is good for the Federal health care system overall. It's
a classic ``win-win'' situation.
VA would also be required to maintain its current level of services
to Medicare-eligible veterans who have been served prior to 1998, and
would be effectively limited to reimbursement for care provided to new
patients since then. In 1998, Congress allowed all veterans to enroll
for VA care and receive a standard benefits package, which includes
prescription drugs.
Prior to the end of the three year demonstration, GAO will do a
thorough evaluation of the program and submit a report to Congress,
complete with details on performance measures and justification for
planned expansion. Based upon the GAO recommendations, VA and HHS will
jointly determine the most appropriate health care delivery models for
the expansion of the program through the entire VA health care system.
GAO will continue to evaluate the expansion of the program for an
additional six years.
During the first session of the 106th Congress, Senator Jeffords and
I successfully pushed a similar proposal through the Senate Finance
Committee. Indeed, over the last couple years, we have tried to enact
this proposal several times. Unfortunately, we have continually met
resistance. Our goal is to overcome this resistance and enact this
proposal without delay. I believe that without enactment of a Medicare
subvention program, VA may well choose to bar middle-income veterans
without a service-connected disability from coming to the VA for care.
I think we all want to avoid that prospect.
There are over 33 thousand Medicare eligible veterans enrolled in the
VA health benefits program in my State of West Virginia. The VA spent
almost $116 million providing health care to them last year. Though
this is telling information, I cannot provide my colleagues with the
truly crucial piece of the story, that is, the number of these
Medicare-eligible veterans who aren't coming to VA because of long
waiting lines and lack of adequate resources. This demonstration
project would encourage these eligible veterans, who have not
previously received care from the Huntington, Beckley, Martinsburg, and
Clarksburg VAMCs, to do so.
Truly, this VA/Medicare proposal is a way to provide quality health
care to veterans who are eligible for both systems of care, while at
the same time preserving and protecting the Medicare Trust Fund. Let us
not delay any longer.
I wish to remind my colleagues of the burden VA now carries in
providing health care to Medicare-eligible veterans. Many Senators have
asked me for a solution to the financial woes of the hospitals in their
States. Enacting this proposal is part of the answer.
Veterans deserve the opportunity to come to VA facilities for their
care and bring their Medicare coverage with them. It makes sense for
all parties.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, Senator Thomas has introduced a
bill to establish a medicare subvention demonstration project for
veterans and I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words
about the issue of medicare subvention for Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) health care. I have heard from many Iowa veterans who are
frustrated that Medicare does not reimburse for medical care provided
by the VA. While veterans who have a disability connected to military
service have their health care paid for in whole or in part by the VA,
veterans who do not have a service connected disability are listed as
``priority 7'' and are required to pay co-payments for the receipt of
VA health care. Many of these priority 7 veterans are Medicare
eligible, yet they cannot use their Medicare benefits to pay for VA
health care.
The number of priority 7 veterans enrolled in VA health care has
increased greatly in recent years, especially in my state of Iowa. This
is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the number of veterans
eligible to enroll in the VA health system as priority 7. However, the
current VA funding formula does not allocate resources to pay for the
care of priority 7 veterans. These costs are intended to be recouped by
billing private insurance or through out-of-pocket co-pays charged to
the veteran, which in fact fall far short of covering the additional
costs to the VA system of serving priority 7 veterans. Allowing
Medicare to reimburse for health care provided in VA facilities would
help alleviate this funding short-fall in the VA system while giving
Medicare eligible veterans greater choice and flexibilty in meeting
their health care needs. Medicare subvention for VA health care would
be a win-win situation for veterans, which is why I strongly support
the concept of Medicare subvention for VA health care.
Questions remain about what effect Medicare subvention for VA health
care could have on the Medicare trust fund. It is possible that
Medicare outlays will increase if Medicare begins to pay for health
care at VA facilities for Medicare eligible veterans currently using
the VA. However, if veterans who are covered by Medicare begin to use
the VA in lieu of private health care and the VA is able to provide
those services at a lower cost, Medicare could actually see savings.
In the 106th Congress, the Senate Finance Committee reported a bill,
S. 1928, which included a Medicare subvention demonstration program
similar to the one introduced by Senator Thomas today. The CBO scored
the Medicare subvention portion of this bill as costing Medicare $70
million over five years. This is a matter that should be studied
further and is an issue that would be closely examined in a
demonstration program such as the one Senator Thomas has proposed.
At the end of the day, Medicare subvention for VA health care is a
good idea. I believe that Senator Thomas is on the right track with his
proposed Medicare subvention demonstration program and I look forward
to working with him and other members of the Senate Finance Committee
to move forward on this important issue.
____________________