Lane Evans

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the chairman of the full committee for his bipartisan work again on this important bill to restore and strengthen the employment and reemployment rights of those who have served in our country's Armed Forces. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits, for introducing this legislation last year. The bill brought to our attention the need to restore the employment and reemployment rights of State employees following a 1996 subcommittee decision that had the effect of terminating their rights. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), chairman of the subcommittee, for introducing this bill before us today, H.R. 3213, which incorporates several important provisions to protect the rights of our servicemembers. Federal law must assure that the appropriate remedies are available when violations of employment or reemployment rights to servicemembers threaten our Nation's ability to obtain and attract a strong military force. Federal law protecting employment and reemployment rights for servicemembers has been in effect since the days before World War II. By passing this bill, we are fulfilling our duty to provide for the common defense of our Nation. With the need to utilize the resources of the National Guard and Reserves to meet our Total Force military responsibilities, it is essential that those who volunteer to serve our country be protected by adequate safeguards of their right to obtain and retain suitable civilian employment. I want to thank my colleagues again, especially the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and the chairman for their hard work that they put in in bringing this bill to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Chairman of the Full Committee for his bipartisan work on this important bill to restore and strengthen the employment and re-employment rights of those who have served our country in the Armed Forces. I wish to thank the Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on Benefits, Mr. Filner for introducing H.R. 166 last year. This bill brought to our attention the need to restore the employment and re-employment rights of State employees following a 1996 Subcommittee decision that had the effect of terminating their rights. I also wish to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, Mr. Quinn for introducing the bill before us, H.R. 3213, which incorporates several important provisions to protect the rights of our servicemembers. Federal law must assure that appropriate remedies are available when violations of the employment or re-employment rights of servicemembers threaten our nation's ability to attain and maintain a strong military force. This bill will correct several deficiencies in present law. Specifically, this bill will provide remedies for violations of employment and re-employment rights of servicemembers by: Providing the federal government with a means of enforcing servicemembers' employment and re-employment rights in federal court; Providing a remedy for servicemembers who are employed in foreign lands by United States corporations; and Providing for review of certain complaints involving violation of servicemembers' rights by federal employers. The need for this legislation became apparent after the Supreme Court's 1996 ruling in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114, that Congress was precluded by the Eleventh amendment from providing a federal forum for suits under laws enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Although the authority for laws involving veterans benefits is derived from the War Powers clause, several courts have held the reasoning of the Seminole Tribe case precludes federal court jurisdiction of claims to enforce federal rights of State employees under the Uniformed Service Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA). Federal law protecting employment and re-employment rights of servicemembers has been in effect since 1940. No claim of Eleventh amendment immunity from suit to enforce those rights in federal court had been granted until after the Supreme Court's Seminole Tribe decision. Several courts have now ruled that the Eleventh amendment bars suit to enforce the present law governing the employment and re- employment rights of State employees. By passing this bill, we are fulfilling our Constitutional duty to ``provide for the common Defence'' of our nation. With the need to utilize the resources of the National Guard and Reserves to meet our Total Force military responsibilities, it is essential that those who volunteer to serve our country be protected by adequate safeguards of their right to obtain and retain suitable civilian employment. The United States has a strong national interest in assuring that its military readiness will not be undermined by policies and practices which can deter competent and qualified citizens from military service, including the Guard and Reserve. This bill assures that the federal government's interest in protecting the employment and re-employment rights of our military personnel can be fully exercised in those cases where the employer is a State government. The ability of the United States to attract and retain the competent and qualified personnel necessary to meet our national security interests will be undermined absent a remedy which the federal government can pursue for egregious violations of veterans' rights. This bill would permit the United States to bring such an action, thereby protecting the federal government's responsibility to provide for the national defense. In addition, this bill extends the protection of employment and re- employment rights to veterans who are employed in foreign lands by United States corporations. In EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 111 S. Ct. 1227 (1991), the Supreme Court considered the issue of the extraterritorial application of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and held that there is a presumption against such application of U.S. laws. The Court also noted that the presumption can be overcome by a clear expression of congressional intent to apply a particular statute outside the United States. This clear expression is desirable in order to fully apply the universal coverage principle that has been inherent in veterans' employment and re-employment rights since the law's inception. Finally the bill provides specific authority to the Federal Merit Protection Board to hear certain complaints involving federal employers, regardless of when the complaint arose. The basis for this change is the case of Monsivais v. Department of Justice (Three Rivers Bureau of Prisons). Mr. Monsivais had been charged with being absent from work without leave due to his participation in required military training after the Bureau of Prisons had refused his request for a military leave of absence. On March 17, 1997, the Office of the Special Counsel determined that even though the Bureau of Prison's alleged violations were prohibited under the prior version of the law, the Veteran's Reemployment Rights Act (VRRA), it was unable to represent Mr. Monsivais because the alleged violation of the law arose under the statute which preceded the enactment of USERRA on October 13, 1994. Because the VRRA did not provide for enforcement by the Office of the Special Counsel, there was no forum to address this violation. The provisions of this bill will allow for representation by the Office of the Special Counsel of persons before the Merit Systems Protection Board for pre-USERRA causes of action which are alleged to be violations of the VRRA statute. Jurisdiction of the Merit Systems Protection Board is extended to all claims filed with the Board after October 13, 1994 regardless of whether the action complained of occurred before, on, or after that date. I thank my colleagues, especially Mr. Quinn, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits and Mr. Filner the Ranking Member of that subcommittee for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor and recommend its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time as he sees fit.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides at this point?

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to join the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) in introducing H.R. 3211, the Arlington National Cemetery Burial Eligibility Act. The GAO has told us that the eligibility requirements for burial at the cemetery needs clarification, and that the standards for waivers have been inconsistently applied over several years. The bill we are considering today directly addresses those concerns. It writes into law the eligibility rules for burial at Arlington, allows for the burial of the close family members of persons whose military service has qualified them for burial at Arlington, and virtually eliminates the possibility that waivers shall be granted in the future to persons who do not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria for burial there. As an enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs since I came to Congress, I know that the cemetery is truly sacred ground, especially for our Nation's veteran population. That is why I was extremely concerned by reports that waivers for burial at the cemetery were being granted in exchange for major political contributions. As everyone should know by now, those reports turned out to be untrue, and without any substantiation whatsoever. But while the GAO expedited review found ``no evidence'' of waivers for contributions, it did highlight some of the serious flaws in the existing process for burials at the cemetery. The bill that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), our chairman, and I have put together addresses those concerns. It removes most of the discretion, ambiguity and guesswork from the eligibility process for burials at the cemetery, and it makes it easier for the public to understand the requirements for burial at the cemetery. Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump). His focus has been on policy over politics. He has worked through this entire process, working with virtually every member of the committee, and has extended great cooperation to me as the leading Democrat on the committee. I salute the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), Mr. Speaker, for his work on getting this bill here today. The bill we are bringing to this Congress today will honor the commitments that so many veterans have made to this country. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, H.R. 3211. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, the proposed settlement between major tobacco companies and various states will receive much attention by the Congress in the coming session. With so much money and emotion wrapped up in one issue, it is anybody's guess how Congress will finally try to resolve this highly contentious issue. But no matter how Congress ultimately decides to address this issue, there is one group of Americans that cannot be left out of any tobacco settlement--our nation's veterans. I share the Administration's view that we should make it a major public health priority to reduce cigarette smoking and nicotine addiction, in part through establishing significant constraints on the ability of tobacco companies to continue to engage in deceptive and deadly marketing practices. A responsible, comprehensive tobacco settlement may be the best way to achieve this goal. But while the Administration has assumed our federal government will collect over $65 billion in proceeds from any tobacco settlement, its Fiscal Year 1999 (FY 99) budget fails to earmark any settlement money for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the federal agency that spends over $4 billion each year providing health care to veterans suffering from tobacco-related illnesses. If anybody deserves to be protected under the terms of a tobacco settlement, it is our nation's veterans, many of whom became addicted to nicotine while in service to our nation. As the resolution I am introducing today spells out in greater detail, tobacco companies and our federal government facilitated--if not encouraged--cigarette smoking in the military. From the time of the Civil War until 1956, the Army was required by law to provide a cheap and nearly endless supply of tobacco to its enlisted men. The Air Force still has a similar law on the books. Cigarettes have been distributed free of charge to members of the Armed Forces as part of their so- called ``C-rations.'' As many as 75 percent of our World War II veterans began smoking as young adults during the course of their military service. Labeling requirements warning of the dangers of nicotine and tobacco usage did not become mandatory for products distributed through the military system until 1970, five years after such a requirement was made applicable to the civilian market. Tobacco products are still sold by military exchanges at substantially discounted rates, thus actively encouraging tobacco usage by military personnel and their dependents. ``Smoke 'em if you got 'em'' has been a watchword of the military culture for years. Given this historical backdrop, it should hardly be surprising that many veterans developed an addiction to nicotine in large part because our government and the tobacco companies made cigarettes so accessible and easy to smoke during their military service. But while our public servants have correctly criticized the tobacco companies for preying on millions of Americans with their highly manipulative marketing practices, the Administration's proposed budget leaves the Department of Veterans Affairs and our veterans to fend for themselves in dealing with tobacco-related illnesses that haunt a substantial portion of our nation's veteran population. And while many would agree that millions of Americans were victimized by misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices that led them down the path to addiction, the Administration's message appears to be that our veterans should have known better. The resolution I have introduced today attempts to send a message that the Congress is not prepared to leave our veterans behind. The Department of Veterans Affairs should receive substantial amounts from any tobacco settlement so that it will have sufficient funds to meet the needs of our veterans suffering from tobacco-related illnesses. This resolution has already received support from most major veterans service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA), the Fleet Reserve Association, the Blinded Veterans Association, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart. I am also pleased that Representative Christopher Smith (R-NJ), the Vice-Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, has joined with me to introduce this bi-partisan, common sense resolution. Congressman Smith's leadership on this issue is indicative of his long- standing commitment to our nation's veterans, and I welcome his support. I urge all Members to join me in co-sponsoring this extremely important resolution.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, on March 11, 1998, I introduced H.R. 3434, the Military Retirees Fairness Act of 1998. I am very pleased my colleague from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, a strong and committed advocate for veterans and military retirees, has joined me as an original sponsor of this legislation. We encourage Congress to enact legislation this year to resolve the long-standing problem addressed by H.R. 3434. Under current law, men and women who served in our Nation's Armed Forces are barred from the concurrent receipt of full military retirement pay and the full amount of compensation granted for a service-connected disability incurred or aggravated during their military service. The Military Retiree Fairness Act will allow military retirees to concurrently receive military retirement pay and service- connected disability benefits. Service-connected benefits are paid to compensate a veteran for disabilities incurred or aggravated during military service. In contrast, military retirement is paid to provide an income to military retirees who spent at least 20 years of their lives working for, and serving, our country as members of the Armed Forces. The purpose and intent of these two programs are distinctively different and should not be confused or considered duplicative. Retired military personnel who were fortunate enough to have emerged from military service unscathed receive the full amount of military retirement pay which they have earned by their military service and do not qualify for service- connected disability benefits. In many cases, these retirees are able to earn additional income through post-military employment and thereby accrue Social Security or other retirement income benefits. Those military retirees who were not so fortunate, are required to forfeit all or a portion of their military retirement pay in order to receive service-connected compensation which has been granted as a result of disability or disease incurred or aggravated during their military careers. These veterans, as a result of their service- connected medical conditions, face diminished post-military service employment possibilities and, therefore, a reduced ability to earn additional income through non-military employment, thereby losing the opportunity to accrue Social Security or other retirement income benefits. While all veterans who are subject to the concurrent receipt offset are unfairly penalized, the Military Retiree Fairness Act would rectify the injustice which falls most heavily on our older veterans. Retirees who qualify for Social Security disability benefits have those benefits offset by monies received under State worker's compensation laws. However, the Social Security statute provides that this offset, which is similar to the military retirement offset, ends when the worker attains 65 years of age. Furthermore, while recipients of Social Security benefits who earn income have their Social Security benefits reduced as a result of their earnings, this offset is reduced at age 65 and eliminated entirely at age 70. The Military Retiree Fairness Act would promote fairness between military retirees and Social Security retirees by reducing the amount of the concurrent receipt offset by 50 percent at age 65 and eliminating it entirely at age 70. Those military retirees who have given so much of their lives to the service of our country and suffered disease or disability as a direct result of their military service do not deserve to be impoverished in their older years by the current receipt offset penalty. I urge my colleagues to join this bipartisan effort to promote fairness for America's military retirees.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Persian Gulf Veterans Act of 1998. This important legislation offers a framework for compensating veterans suffering from Gulf War illnesses, responds to the need many veterans have expressed for identifying effective models to treat hard-to-define diseases, and addressed other problems Congress has investigated since 1992. Joining with me, as original cosponsors of the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998, are my distinguished colleagues, Representatives Abercrombie, Bishop, Blagojevich, Brown, Carson, Clyburn, Filner, Gutierrez, Kennedy(MA), Mascara, Ortiz, Peterson, Reyes, Rodriguez, and Underwood. I am also pleased the Persian Gulf Veterans Act of 1998 has the support of the major groups advocating on behalf of Persian Gulf veterans. The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and Vietnam Veterans of America have all expressed support for this measure. Seven years ago this week, allied ground forces, with air and naval support, countered Iraq's invasion of its neighbor Kuwait. Of the nearly 700,000 American troops who served in the Persian Gulf theatre, about 100,000 have signed onto registries maintained by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. The Departments' estimates of those registered who have diagnoses which are not easily treated vary from 10-25 percent. Meeting the needs of those suffering from illnesses, including those which defy ready diagnoses and treatments, is a continuing obligation of our nation--an obligation we must honor. With the current buildup of American troops in the Persian Gulf region, the need for enacting the Persian Gulf Veterans Act of 1998 is even more compelling. The Persian Gulf Veterans Act of 1998 calls for an independent agency to advise the Department of Veterans Affairs on the appropriateness of the federal research agenda on the numerous illnesses suffered by Gulf vets and the probable causes of these illnesses. The research review would lay the foundation for compensating Persian Gulf War veterans by determining where associations can be made between specific exposures and illnesses and where other information must be considered. It may take years to determine why so many veterans are sick, but we know one thing for sure. Our veterans are suffering and many share similar symptoms that are not attributable to any particular cause. It seems fair to use these symptoms, rather than some yet-to-be-determined causes as the basis for compensation. While this approach would require scientist to determine which conditions are most likely the result of Gulf War service, veterans would not have to prove that a certain exposure caused an adverse health outcome. That would require some science that simply does not exit. Determining the ``prevalence'' of the illnesses Gulf War veterans experience more often than other veterans from the same era, is an epidemiologic approach endorsed by scientists from the President's Gulf War advisory panel. On February 5th, Dr. Arthur Caplan, a member of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, stated that his Committee felt that a prevalence model gave the veterans the greatest benefit of the doubt. According to Dr. Caplan, ``Gulf War Illness is a very real phenomena. No one on this committee should doubt that for a moment . . . What should be forthcoming . . . is an unwavering commitment from this Congress and this administration to provide the health and disability benefits to all those who became sick when they came back from the Gulf.'' The Persian Gulf Veterans Act of 1998 would also require the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS/IOM) to review emerging technologies to assess exposure to agents that may have been present in the Gulf or to identify new diagnostic tools for some conditions. It would ask the NAS/IOM to assess the most effective treatment protocols for illnesses like those from which Persian Gulf veterans suffer and to review the research undertaken by the federal government and offer its own assessment of the research to date along with identifying research that should be done to fill the knowledge gaps. This would provide the ``third-party'' perspective sought by many Persian Gulf veterans, as well as the American public. The Persian Gulf Veterans Act of 1998 would also require the information infrastructure VA, DOD and Congress need to review the extent of veterans' health care problems and monitor these agencies' abilities to address them with adequate compensation and health care services. We must never give up on our efforts to learn why many of our Gulf vets are sick, but we must also use the best available means to treat their symptoms and to compensate them for their disabilities. Our veterans deserve the benefit of the doubt on this issue, and that's what the Persian Gulf Veterans Act of 1998 is designed to give them.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time I have remaining for purposes of control to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 714, as amended. Madam Speaker, this agreement includes provisions to clarify, extend, and enhance measures to address homelessness among this Nation's veterans. The provisions before us today will allow the VA to continue to offer a range of programs to homeless veterans. Together these programs comprise a comprehensive increase that meets veterans' needs for health care, substance abuse treatment, vocational rehab work, and shelter. In addition, this measure extends the homeless veterans reintegration project administered by the Department of Labor and authorizes $10 million for this important program for fiscal year 1999. This measure also permanently authorizes the VA to provide noninstitutional long-term care programs. Many veterans want to live at home as long as possible. Good noninstitutional programs can make this a reality. Under this authority the VA can provide cost-effective programs like home care, home aides, and adult day care to more veterans. An important change in the eligibility of VA health care for the Persian Gulf veterans is included in this measure. Eligibility will now be based on a veteran's service, rather than actual exposure to a specific agent or environmental hazard. Authority is also provided for the VA to create 10 model Persian Gulf veterans' treatment programs. Seven years has been too long to wait to meet the health care needs of our Persian Gulf veterans. I encourage the VA to develop centers of excellence and innovation for treatment of Persian Gulf symptoms related to their exposure. The measure also requires the VA to establish a strong and comprehensive policy for mammography screening. The policy will specifically address women veterans over the age of 39 and any other veterans with clinical symptoms or risk factors that will allow physicians and patients to decide how long screening is necessary. Two clarifying amendments are also included that should be mentioned. The first would clarify that children of Vietnam veterans who are born with spina bifida are eligible for the programs provided by the VA for such children, regardless of the character of the discharge of the child's Vietnam veteran parent. Additionally, the VA is to develop a child's vocational training program prior to the child's eligibility to begin participation in that program. This measure also extends for 4 years the authority provided in the Native American Veterans Housing Loan Pilot Program. This important program provides direct loans to Native American veterans who reside on trust lands to build or purchase homes on those lands. I am pleased that the Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Discrimination Prevention Act of 1997 is included in this bill. This is timely, and important legislation to reform the equal employment opportunity process at the VA is long overdue. By removing the EEO process from the facility where the discrimination allegedly occurred, this bill limits the ability of heavy-handed facility directors to unfairly influence the process in a discrimination complaint by requiring that such complaints be handled mostly by full-time, well- trained investigators at the regional EEO field office level. This bill brings greater independence and professionalism to the process. By removing the final decision-making process from the VA's Office of General Counsel, this bill eliminates the obvious conflict of interest that exists today, when the General Counsel's Office is expected to be an advocate for the Department on one hand, and to decide the merits of a complaint against the Department on another hand. Madam Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman from Arizona, the chairman of the committee, for his continuing efforts on behalf of our Nation's veterans. This is the end of our first year of working together with the gentleman from Arizona [Chairman Stump], and we have had a great experience dealing with him, and but also with his subcommittee chairs, Cliff Stearns, Jack Quinn and Terry Everett. I thank them for work on behalf of our Nation's veterans. I want to thank my equivalent subcommittee ranking members, the gentleman from Illinois, [Luis Gutierrez], the gentleman from California, [Bob Filner], and the gentleman from South Carolina, [James Clyburn], for their excellent commitment to our veterans. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 714, as amended. As amended, S. 714 contains provisions of major importance to our Nation's veterans. It deserves the support of every Member of the House. A number of the provisions in the measure now before us have already been approved by the House in legislation reported earlier this year by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I will not review every provision in this legislation, but will highlight several of the provisions of particular importance. The Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Discrimination Resolution and Adjudication Act of 1997 is long overdue. The VA's efforts to eradicate harassment in the workplace have met with little, if any, success since I chaired the first oversight hearings on this issue back in 1992. In the 103d Congress, I cosponsored a bill much like the legislation we are considering today which overwhelmingly passed the House, but received no action in the Senate. At that time, the VA believed a proposed Governmentwide reform of the Federal EEO process was in the works, and there was no need to pass legislation to address what most would agree was a very serious problem at the Department. Nearly 5 years later, the long-promised Governmentwide reform has never come, and the VA's ``zero tolerance'' policy on sexual harassment has proven ineffective if not abysmal. That's why passage by both bodies of Congress of this timely and important legislation to reform the equal employment opportunity process at the VA is critically important. By removing the EEO complaint process from the facility where the discrimination allegedly occurred, this bill limits the ability of heavy-handed facility directors to unfairly influence the processing of discrimination complaints; by requiring that such complaints be handled by mostly full-time, well-trained investigators at regional EEO field offices, this bill brings greater independence and professionalism to the process. And by removing the final agency decision-making authority from the VA's Office of General Counsel, this bill eliminates the obvious conflict-of-interest that exists today when the general counsel's office is expected to be an advocate for the Department on the one hand, and to decide the merits of a complaint against the Department on the other. I want to applaud Chairman Everett for his willingness to work with Jim Clyburn and me to put together a bill that will greatly improve the processing of discrimination complaints at the VA. I also want to thank Senators Arlen Specter, Bob Graham, Jay Rockefeller, Lauch Faircloth, and Tim Hutchinson for working with us in the House to put together a bill we can all be proud of. I also want to commend the Department of Veterans Affairs for their willingness to work with the committees on language to a bill that I know the VA doesn't love, but that most people--even within the VA--would agree they need. By enacting this legislation, Congress will help put VA back on the path toward restoring employee trust in the EEO process and eradicating discrimination in the workplace. Our veterans and VA employees deserve no less. A number of the provisions in the House amendment to S. 714 are derived from H.R. 2206, a bill the House already approved. These provisions include measures to clarify, extend, and enhance measures to address homelessness. On any given night in America one-third of those living on the streets are veterans--many of them are my peers from the Vietnam era. I find this hard to live with--both as a veteran and as an American citizen--and I believe the provisions included in the House amendment provide a greater opportunity to respond to this problem. These provisions will allow VA to continue to offer a range of programs to homeless veterans. Together these programs comprise a comprehensive network that meets veterans' needs for health care, substance abuse treatment, vocational rehabilitation, work, and shelter. Additionally, the House amendment permanently authorizes VA to provide noninstitutional long-term care programs. Many veterans want to live at home as long as possible--good noninstitutional programs can make this a reality. I encourage VA to take full advantage of this permanent authority to provide cost-effective programs like home care, home aides, and adult day health care to more veterans. The measure before the House also includes an important change in the eligibility for VA health care for Persian Gulf war veterans. The language makes eligibility for such services contingent upon veterans' service rather than their actual exposure to a specific agent or environmental hazard. The change is significant as it offers veterans, whose illnesses remain undiagnosed, the benefit of the doubt. Until science enables VA to link specific agents with their health consequences, suffering veterans will have the ability to access VA services to treat their special health care needs. It also offers a provision to create 10 model Persian Gulf veterans' treatment programs in VA. Seven years has been too long to wait to meet the health care needs of these men and women. I am hopeful using this grant approach for funding will allow VA to develop some real centers of excellence and innovation for treatment of veterans' symptoms related to their gulf war deployment. This measure will also extend authority for VA's Health Professional Scholarship Program for another year, but it will require VA to submit a report on the program's effectiveness in the first 6 months after enactment. The measure requires VA to establish a strong and comprehensive policy for mammogram screening. The policy will specifically address women veterans over the age of 39 and other veterans with clinical symptoms or risk factors, but will allow physicians and patients to decide how often screening is necessary. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the compromise measure we are now considering includes provision which extends the homeless veterans reintegration project [HVRP] administered by the Department of Labor and authorizes $10 million for the program. There is virtually no disagreement that one-third of the homeless men in this country are veterans--and that approximately 60 percent of those individuals are veterans of the Vietnam era. This means, Mr. Chairman, that every night, in this great country of ours, more than 280,000 veterans are sleeping on America's streets or in homeless shelters. Since 1987, HVRP, a modest, cost-effective program designed to help homeless veterans reenter and succeed in the job market, has proven its worth. More than 41,000 homeless veterans have received help and support from the community-based organizations funded under HVRP, and many were placed in jobs at a cost of less than $1,500 per veteran. Few Government programs can claim to have achieved so much with so little. Earlier this year, the Veterans' Affairs Committee voted unanimously to fund HVRP. Republicans and Democrats alike came together to show their support for the men and women who have served honorably in our Nation's Armed Forces. Additionally, I was very pleased when the House unanimously approved an amendment I offered for myself and my distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Filner, to the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriation to increase HVRP funding, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Labor Appropriations Committee next year to ensure that HVRP is fully funded in fiscal year 1999. Included in the House amendment to S. 714 are two clarifying amendments which deserve mention. First, the compromise would clarify that children of Vietnam veterans who are born with spina bifida are eligible for the programs provided by the VA for such children regardless of the character of discharge of the child's Vietnam veteran parent. Additionally, the agreement would clarify that VA assessment, evaluation, counseling, and the development of a child's vocational training program must begin at a time which will enable the child to begin participation in that program upon successful completion of secondary schooling or on the child's 18th birthday. These provisions are important to fair and effective implementation of the new spina bifida legislation, and I am pleased they are a part of this compromise measure. Established under section 8 of Public Law 102-547, the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Pilot Program, administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA], provides direct home loans to native American veterans who reside on trust lands to build or purchase homes on those lands. Previously, native American veterans who resided on trust lands were unable to qualify for VA home loan benefits. The authority for this program expired on September 30, 1997, and I strongly support the 4-year extension of the program included in the compromise agreement. Under the pilot program, VA can make a loan to a native American veteran for a home on trust lands only if VA had entered into a memorandum of understanding [MOU] with the Tribal entity that had jurisdiction over the trust land. Since the establishment of the program in 1992, VA has entered into 47 such MOU's and 164 loans have been made to native American veterans for the purchase, construction, or improvement of dwellings on trust land. Negotiations continue with hundreds of other tribes to establish memorandums of understanding and more than 90 individual loan applications are pending. Although the numbers of native Americans who have taken advantage of the loan opportunities available under this program are smaller than expected, new outreach and reporting requirements included in the compromise agreement should result in an increased understanding of the program among Native Americans and thus increased participation. The legislation we bring to the floor today also includes provisions from H.R. 2571, VA medical care major construction and lease authorizations for fiscal year 1998, another bill the House passed in October. This bill accommodates the administration's construction spending priorities as well as those projects for which appropriations have already been made. The major construction projects require modest funding, but are critical to providing access to veterans in areas where their needs cannot be met or in maintaining patient safety in existing facilities which are deficient in conforming to seismic code. I am also pleased with the emphasis this bill places on outpatient projects and development of information resources management centers. Leasing, rather than building, to meet VA's needs is also a move in the right direction. VA has sometimes been criticized for using ``bricks and mortar'' to meet its space requirements while facilities in the community stand vacant. The leases this bill authorizes are a more flexible means by which VA can provide the capacity it needs today, but may not need tomorrow. Enhanced-use leases are a relatively new venture for VA, but they have proven to be a cost-effective means of providing programs to VA beneficiaries VA could not otherwise afford. The measure we offer today repeals limitations on the number of projects VA can enter in any given year or under current authority. Enhanced-use leases allow VA to offer lessees land or space to operate programs that ensure discounted benefits for VA, its beneficiaries or its employees over the terms of the lease. Space has been offered for a diverse range of services including child-care that benefits VA employees, co-generation projects, research facilities, and patient services. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in support of the provisions to improve health care and benefits for America's veterans that we bring to the floor today. As we approach Veterans Day 1997, this legislation will serve as a part of the appropriate recognition we pay to the men and women who have served our Nation in uniform. This legislation will honor their service and sacrifice and be a tangible expression of our continuing commitment to care for those who have borne the battle, and their survivors and dependents. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], a member of the committee.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank everybody who has worked on making this legislation happen, particularly the committee's staff. On our side, I would like to recognize the contribution of Mike Durishin, Jill Cochran, Mary Ellen McCarthy, Susan Edgerton, Sandra McClellan, Adam Sachs, Debbie Smith, Beth Kilken, and Tom O'Donnell. They have been of great assistance to us, particularly me in my first year in this position as ranking Democratic member, and we appreciate their time and energy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn], a member of the committee.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard]. (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rodriguez], a member of the committee.

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for introducing this important legislation. I strongly support this bill, which maintains the value of the compensation benefits received by our- service-connected disabled veterans and their families. Because the Nation's economy is strong and the rate of inflation is low, this year's cost of living increase for veterans receiving compensation is correspondingly modest. Specifically, this legislation codifies a 2.1-percent increase in service-connected compensation benefits. By enacting this bill, we are keeping our promise to our veterans with service-connected disabilities. The 2.1 percent VA compensation cost of living increase provided by this bill is the same rate of increase being provided to beneficiaries of Social Security. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to this bill offered by the distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The amendment is a measured response to a difficult and complex question: Under what circumstances should a veteran who has served our country honorably be denied the privilege of a burial in a cemetery set aside for the repose of veterans? This bill recognizes that some former members of the Armed Forces have been found guilty of acts so egregious in the eyes of the Nation that they should forfeit their right to burial in a cemetery dedicated to veterans. S. 923, as amended, recognizes the special value of service to our country. It reinforces the general principle of veterans rights earned in service to this Nation may be abridged only in the most extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary circumstances which justify an abridgement of the right to burial in a veterans cemetery are specified in this legislation. The amendment offered by the gentleman today, which I support, varies from the version passed by the full committee. These changes clarify the intent of the committee to prevent the burial of former military members who engaged in postmilitary service acts so offensive to preclude their burial in those cemeteries which have been set aside for the repose of our Nation's veterans. Veterans who are convicted of Federal capital crimes and of murder in State capital cases will be barred from burial in the National Cemetery Service, Arlington National Cemetery, and any State's veterans cemetery which has received a grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs for such cemetery on or after the date of the enactment of this bill. Veterans who fled to avoid prosecution or who have lost their life as a result of a Federal and State capital crime which otherwise would have resulted in the sentence of death or life imprisonment as defined by this bill will also be barred from burial in a veterans cemetery. An earlier version of this bill would have denied the burial benefits to veterans who had not been tried by reason of insanity. As a result of the concerns raised by the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rodriguez], it became clear that such a course would be unwise. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee and particularly the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], the chairman of the subcommittee, who worked diligently to address these issues contained in this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rodriguez], a fighter for veterans and member of the committee.

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.