Lane Evans

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] for yielding me the time. I oppose the Budget Enforcement Act because I believe our Nation's veterans and their families may suffer if this bill is passed. If sequestration procedures were triggered, the Budget Enforcement Act could permanently reduce VA compensation benefits for more than 2.5 million service- connected disabled veterans and their surviving spouses next year. At the same time, needs-based pension programs for 710,000 low-income wartime veterans could be reduced, insurance premiums for more than 1.5 million veterans could be increased, and 30,000 veterans could be denied health care from the VA in 1998. The Budget Enforcement Act would continue Congress' role in neglect toward our Nation's veterans. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report on Federal social spending, veterans benefits programs are the only Federal social programs in the recently adopted budget to suffer a real reduction in purchasing power over the next 5 fiscal years. We in Congress are not willing to abandon our obligations to men and women who have served in this country. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and protect our Nation's veterans.

Mr. EVANS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Last night I testified before the Committee on Rules on behalf of an amendment I would like to offer to H.R. 2003, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997. The Committee on Rules did not choose to make in order my amendment, and our Nation's veterans and their families may suffer as a result. If entitlement program costs are underestimated or if revenue collections fail to meet projected targets, enactment of the Budget Enforcement Act could be no less than catastrophic for many of our Nation's veterans and their dependents. That is why I am asking Members to vote against the proposed rule. By voting no on the rule, Members have the chance to say yes to our Nation's veterans and their families. My amendment exempts veterans benefits and programs from potentially devastating effects of this legislation if cost savings and revenue projections are miscalculated. If enacted without amendment, the Budget Enforcement Act would continue the Congress on a troubling path of neglect toward our Nation's veterans. Adoption of my amendment would be one important way to show that we in Congress are not willing to abandon the obligations we have to the men and women who have faithfully served our country. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and vote yes for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2158, the VA-HUD- Independent Agencies Appropriations for fiscal year 1998. Although I am concerned about some provisions in this measure, the Appropriations Committee has generally been supportive of many of VA's programs. My primary concern relates to the provision in H.R. 2158 which specifies a freeze on appropriated dollars for VA health care. As years pass, inflation will erode the value of this funding. Proponents of this appropriation claim that the new scheme allowing VA medical centers to keep veterans' copayments and third-party collections will replace appropriated funds. In its report, however, the Appropriations Committee notes that the accuracy of each year's estimated third-party collection is unknown. How, then, can we ensure that resources will be available to provide medical care to those veterans who need it? Nonetheless, the committee notes that there are now tremendous incentives for VA medical centers to increase their collections and that additional funding for health care services is possible if medical centers reduce the administrative costs of collections. I strongly support this view as well as the Appropriations Committee's direction to VA to develop allocation policies that will increase collection incentives. Additionally, I appreciate the committee's commitment to review the subject of collections and incentives yearly. The committee report points out that VA will be challenged by the necessity to treat more patients at the same time employment levels decrease. Although the Veterans Health Administration has made tremendous progress in its efforts to transition from an acute-care, hospital-based system to one focused on care in an outpatient setting, the committee appropriately notes that these efforts must continue if veterans are to receive the quality service they have earned. Also of importance is the committee's expressed concern about the Veterans' Health Administration's Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation [VERA] system. The committee appropriately notes that this system could adversely affect the quality and accessibility of care being provided to veterans in Northeastern States and requests the General Accounting Office [GAO] to, within the next 4 months, study and report on the effects of the VERA implementation. I additionally strongly support the committee's direction to the VA to fund all Veterans Integrated Service Networks [VISN's] at least at the fiscal year 1996 level. Although the VERA system may have a great deal of merit, the potential negative effect of this system on certain veterans demands that the system be implemented only after very careful study. Integration of VA medical centers is another issue that demands very careful consideration. I have urged VA to pursue consolidation of services at the Lakeside and West Side medical centers in Chicago with caution, and the Appropriations Committee expresses similar concern regarding plans for the integration of the VA medical centers at Tuskegee and Montgomery, AL. I support the committee's direction that VA not proceed with this integration until Congress and GAO have had an opportunity to review a detailed plan of the integration which the VA must submit. In its report, the committee mentions an innovative proposal underway in Detroit, MI, to establish a VA partnership with a private, not-for- profit, highly integrated health care system which will assist VHA's development of a sophisticated, medical information infrastructure. The development of this system is critical to the reorganization of VHA's health care delivery system, and I commend the committee for its support of this effort. VA's medical and prosthetic research program has long been one of the most highly respected in the country, and I am pleased that H.R. 2158 provides the funding necessary to continue this important research. VA's achievements in this area have benefited not only America's veterans but all of America's citizens, and VA researchers have more than earned the support included in this appropriation. I particularly want to note the committee's instruction that funding for research into Parkinson's disease be increased. Many excellent opportunities for joint research are available which would enable the VA to expand its research into this debilitating disease which affects so many of our aging citizens. I want to express my support for the committee's comments urging the VA to continue developing a medical research service minority recruitment initiative in collaboration with minority health professional institutions. This important initiative should be a top priority in the Veterans Health Administration. Additionally, VA should certainly comply with the committee's recommendation that Ph.D. research scientists be exempt from potential reductions in the number of GS 14-15 positions in the research program. The loss of these talented middle managers is adversely affecting VA research and must be stopped. In addition to health-care initiatives, there are several benefit- related provisions in H.R. 2158 which deserve support. For example, the appropriation includes funding for loans to nonprofit organizations to assist them in leasing housing units exclusively for use as transitional housing for veterans following treatment of substance abuse. The measure also includes additional funds for retention of VA staff to improve the timeliness of processing veterans claims and for higher than anticipated contracting costs of the year 2000 computer problem. Finally, I compliment the committee on its continuing efforts to ensure that VA defers further efforts on the Veterans Services Network [VETSNET] program until the year 2000 computer problem has been solved. Because the effects of a VA failure to make the required year 2000 corrections would have a catastrophic effort on our Nation's veterans, this challenge must be met even if other important modernization projects must be delayed. I thank the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, Bob Livingston, and the ranking democrat on the committee, David Obey, for their support for America's veterans. The chairman and ranking democrat of the subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies have also earned the sincere thanks of the veteran community. I know you were dealing with a very difficult budget situation, and your hard work on behalf of veterans must be recognized.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I prepared an amendment to this appropriations bill that would have prohibited the VA from using fiscal year 1998 dollars to contract with businesses that have serious and repeated violations of Federal labor and safety laws. I will not, however, offer my amendment at this time. The Committee on Rules did not agree to waive possible points of order against it. But I want to remind Members that our Nation's Federal contracting laws are in need of much reform. The amendment I had hoped to offer this evening is similar to H.R. 1624, the Federal Procurement and Assistance Integrity Act that I introduced during this Congress. The amendment was narrowly tailored, however, so it would only apply to VA appropriations during the next fiscal year. It would have prohibited the VA from contracting with businesses with a history of serious and repeated labor and safety law violations. The amendment would have helped ensure that the VA only does business with entities that comply with the laws that protect America's working men and women from unfair working practices and unsafe workplace conditions. Beverly Enterprises is one of the largest nursing home operations in the United States. It has an extremely poor safety record and a longstanding record of vindictive and illegal labor practices. The GAO has labeled Beverly as one of the most serious labor violators among our Nation's Federal contractors. The U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania recently stated that Beverly's labor law practices have been ``selectively geared to destroy or at least impede communication among union members.'' On the health and safety front Beverly has repeatedly refused to allow investigators from OSHA to visit their facilities, even when the inspectors produce a warrant. These facts speak for themselves. It is time to stop pouring taxpayer dollars down the corporate coffers of the Federal contractors who play fast and loose with the employees' rights and jeopardize the lives of American workers for the sake of the bottom line. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider this kind of contracting reform as we take up future appropriations bills in this Congress.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, the Veterans' Affairs Committee held a hearing this week on S. 923 and H.R. 2040, measures which would deny certain veterans' benefits to veterans convicted of certain capital crimes. Seven of the major veterans' service organizations testified as one voice, and I urge my colleagues to review their excellent statement which thoughtfully examines a very difficult and complex issue. Their testimony follows: Statement of Rick Surratt, Disabled American Veterans Before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, July 9, 1997 I am pleased to present the collective views of the American Legion, AMVETS, the Blinded Veterans Association (BVA), the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), the Jewish War Veterans of the USA, the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), and the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) on two bills to amend the law pertaining to benefits eligibility in the case of veterans committing capital crimes. The national veterans organizations comprising this group, which for the sake of convenience I will refer to as the ``veterans group,'' have come together to speak as one, united voice because of the views and concerns they hold in common on the subject matter of these bills. The veterans group appreciates your invitation to explain its position on whether and to what extent the commission of capital offenses by veterans should affect their, or their dependents,' benefit eligibility status. Without question, this raises a serious public policy question for our Nation's citizens. It is also certainly appropriate that the millions of veterans the group represents have a voice on this issue because, after all, these veterans are some of America's most patriotic and civic-mined citizens, and these matters, of course, also involve highly valued and honored rights veterans earned by virtue of their reviewed service to the Nation. On the other hand, because veterans are among our most responsible citizens, they must not and will not view their interests as veterans as separate from or in conflict with the greater interests of the Nation as a whole. However, as appropriate with many such difficult issues, they counsel a balancing between the immediate human desire for and the attractiveness of societal retribution for crimes and the countervailing rational concerns about the maintenance of stable measured, and equitable principles of law--and thus the best interests of our society as a whole--over the long- term. It is that sense of prudence and equity that guides the veterans group in their position of these bills. The veterans group has no quarrel with a view that veterans are without privilege to disobey society's rules, and that, absent special circumstances, the consequences for crimes should be the same for veterans and nonveterans. fairness dictates that veterans be treated the same as other citizens on matters unrelated to their status as veterans per se, however. Thus, the veteran should not suffer greater or harsher penalties merely because he or she is a veteran than a similarly situated nonveteran. To impose greater punishment on the veteran goes beyond punishment on account of a crime to punishment on account of being a veteran. That is not to argue that we should continue to hold veterans who commit crimes in the same high esteem that we do veterans who conduct themselves properly. Thus, we do not have to bestow the same honors upon veterans who bring dishonor to themselves as we would upon veterans who continue to conduct themselves in an upright manner during their civilian lives following completion of military service. Of concern to the veterans group here, however, is the treatment to be accorded veteran status once earned through satisfactory fulfillment of service to the Nation. Veteran status is a legal status which, as a practical matter, is realized through the special rights created for veterans to enjoy as a restitution for the sacrifices of military service. Almost without exception, this status, once accrued, is considered indefeasible. It is conferred by the completion and honorable character of the recipient's military service and is not conditioned upon subsequent conduct in civilian life. Logically, that is as it should be. Just as a former servicemember without honorable service should not be awarded veterans' rights on the basis of post-service accomplishments, no matter how commendable, conversely, veteran status should not be exposed to rescission as a result of civilian conduct following, or for other reasons unrelated to, the performance of military service. Veterans should be secure in the knowledge that their veteran status is vested and will not be held hostage to irrelevant, post- service factors. If veterans' rights are intended to remunerate for disabilities incurred, opportunities lost, extraordinary rigors suffered, or contributions made in connection with and during the time of military service, such rights should, like wages earned, not be withheld or recalled because of subsequent performance or unconnected actions or events, even when such actions or events are of a character that evoke very negative public sentiments. The special value of service to one's country and the integrity of veteran status would be defeated by departure from that tradition. Fidelity to this principle admits exceptions for only the most highly exceptional circumstances. Currently, the law provides for forfeiture of veterans' rights only under circumstances of crimes against the government which jeopardize or seriously threaten our national security. Section 6104 of title 38, United States Code, provides that veterans shown to be guilty of mutiny, treason, or sabotage forfeit all future VA benefits, and section 6105 of title 38 similarly provides that veterans convicted of a variety of subversive activities forfeit VA benefits, including eligibility for burial in a national cemetery. These circumstances justify nullification of veterans' entitlements because individuals should not receive support from a government they actively seek to destroy. This Committee now has before it S. 923 which the Senate passed recently. This bill would essentially void the veteran status of any veteran convicted of a Federal capital offense. Forfeiture would result from the commission of any Federal offense punishable by death (regardless of whether the death penalty was deemed warranted or actually imposed). Obviously, that would go well beyond the nature of the offenses which are now deemed to justify voidance of veteran status. While the veterans of this Nation understand and, indeed, share in the public indignation at such detestable acts, they believe that persons committing such crimes should be punished as criminals, not veterans. As noted previously, when the laws impose the criminal penalty and also void veteran status, they punish veterans both for the crime and because they are veterans. Unquestionably, persons committing capital offenses, as well as many lesser but also repulsive or unsavory crimes such as child molestation or even drunken driving, are justifiably not viewed very sympathetically by the public, but emotions should not obscure or overcome the more judicious considerations appropriate in these matters. An integral part of our national values and the qualities that set us apart from other nations is our refusal to compromise justice and fairness even for the most reprehensible within our society. Therefore, in addition to opposing S. 923 because it operates to impose greater punishment on veterans merely because they are veterans, the veterans group also opposes it as a matter of principle inasmuch as it diminishes the intrinsic value of veteran status. This would be but one step in undermining the fortification of veteran status against the capricious overreactions of those who would revoke it in the name of any popular cause or crusade or would find it a convenient target against which they could direct their frustration. If enacted into law, this will make veterans more vulnerable to oblique attacks or indirect punishment for unrelated matters. Again, once veteran status is earned, it should be a protected and an irrevocable right, not to be taken away because of subsequent unrelated events, except for serious crimes against the nation. Preservation of the high esteem of veteran status promotes patriotic ideals and national unity, and is in the best interest of the Nation as a whole. H.R. 2040, introduced by Committee Chairman Stump on behalf of himself, Mr. Evans, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Everett, Mr. Filner, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Clyburn, and Mr. Stearns, would preclude burial in a federally funded cemetery for persons guilty of first-degree murder of certain Federal officials and law enforcement personnel in conjunction with the commission of certain other Federal crimes. This bill does not have the objectionable effects of S. 923. H.R. 2040 would impose this bar by amending section 2402 of title 38, United States Code, to exclude from eligibility for burial in federally funded cemeteries those who have been convicted of, or are shown to have committed, the crimes specified. In addition to first-degree murder of Federal officers or employees as provided in section 1114 of title 18, United States Code, the persons excluded must have committed one of the following crimes: damage or destruction or attempted damage or destruction by fire or an explosive of Federal property, as provided under section 844(f) of title 18, United States Code; use of a weapon of mass destruction, as prohibited under section 2332a of title 18, United States Code; acts of terrorism, as prohibited under section 2332b of title 18, United States Code; use of chemical weapons, as prohibited under section 2332c of title 18, United States Code; providing material support to terrorists within the United States, as prohibited under section 2339A of title 18, United States Code; or providing material support or resources to foreign terrorists, as prohibited under section 2339B of title 18, United States Code. Such persons would be ineligible for burial in Arlington National Cemetery, any cemetery of the National Cemetery System, or any state cemetery for which a grant has been approved or provided under section 2408 of title 18, United States Code. This prohibition would apply to applications for burial or interment made on or after the date of enactment of the legislation. While we do not wish to understate the gravity of capital offenses, the disqualifying crimes are of a character and magnitude to be distinguishable from the other numerous capital offenses generally. Moreover, the question of who should be permitted to be buried in our national cemeteries is different from the question of who should have rights as veterans generally. There are valid reasons to prevent persons committing these crimes from being buried in the places of honor set aside for our Nation's most gallant and beloved sons and daughters. First, such persons are themselves unworthy of the honor of burial in these hallowed shrines. Second, to permit persons of such depravity to be buried in the midst of those who fully deserve the honor and tribute, belittles that honor, mocks that tribute, and defeats the special purpose of these places of dignity and sanctity. The national and other federally funded veterans cemeteries serve as a lasting testimonial to this Nation's gratitude for the sacrifices of its veterans. Being an enduring symbol of the special honor our Nation reserves for its veterans to memorialize their bravery, patriotic deeds, and glory, the renown of these sanctuaries resides in the character of those buried there. It is therefore unfair to our other noble veterans to permit persons who have acted so dishonorably through the commission of such heinous crimes to be buried alongside of them. H.R. 2040 appropriately responds to concerns that our veterans' cemeteries not be degraded by interment of persons who wear a badge of infamy. The class of persons barred by H.R. 2040 is very carefully tailored to exclude from eligibility those who commit the type of crimes warranting such action, and this bill does not include more reactive provisions and sweeping forfeiture that has inappropriate implications and disturbs the integrity of veterans status itself. The veterans group does have some questions of a purely technical nature about H.R. 2040, however. To bar those who have not been convicted by a court due to unavailability for trial but who are nonetheless shown to have committed disqualifying crimes, H.R. 2040 provides for an administrative determination of ineligibility. Subparagraph (B) of the new subsection (b) excludes burial eligibility for ``a person shown to the appropriate Secretary by clear and convincing evidence, after an opportunity for a hearing in such manner as such Secretary may prescribe, to have committed a crime described in both clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) but has not been convicted of such crimes by reason of such person not being available for trial due to death, flight to avoid prosecution, or determination of insanity.'' Although it presents no serious concern, the practical effect of subparagraph (B) in the case of unavailability for trial due to death or flight to avoid prosecution is questionable. If the person has not been tried due to death, he or she would either already be interred or inurned in a nongovernment cemetery or mausoleum, would already be interred or inurned in a federally funded cemetery covered by this bill, or might be in a mortuary. In the first instance, the question of interment in a veterans' cemetery would seem an unlikely one. In the second instance, if the person's crimes were not learned until after burial in a veterans' cemetery, for example, would disqualification under this section require disinterment, and if so, who would bear the costs of such disinterment? In the third instance, where the person was killed at the time of the crime and the body is awaiting burial, for example, the requirement of an administrative hearing might effectively bar burial regardless of the proper disposition of the issue if the bureaucracy moves at its usual speed. It is also unclear how the issue of eligibility would arise if the person is a live fugitive, unless this provision is to be interpreted as requiring a preemptive administrative determination, which would seem unnecessary given the possible eventualities that there may never be a request for burial of such person in a federally funded cemetery; that the person will be apprehended and tried, making this subparagraph inapplicable; or that the issue will arise upon the person's death, which of course then returns us to the questions about implementation in the case of a deceased person. (Recognizing that, in their proceedings, administrative tribunals do not apply the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The American Legion is nonetheless also concerned that the presumption of innocence is rebutted by less conclusive proof in the administrative proceedings under subparagraph (B) than in criminal trials.) As written, subparagraph (B) applies to those who have not been ``convicted'' because of ``not being available for trial.'' Thus, it would not, and should not, apply to persons tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity. For simple clarity and to ensure this causes no hesitation or possibility of misinterpretation by administrative personnel, the veterans group suggests that ``determination of incompetence to stand trial'' or language of similar import might be more appropriate. It appears that there would be a right of appeal on any adverse determination with respect to burial in a national cemetery under section 2402. Under section 7104 of title 38, United States Code, the Board of Veterans' Appeals has jurisdiction to review any decision of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the provision of benefits in accordance with the Secretary's authority under section 511 of title 38. H.R. 2040 appears to leave unanswered the collateral question of the right of and process for administrative or judicial appeal from adverse determinations of the Secretary of the Army regarding Arlington National Cemetery, however. The Committee may wish to amend H.R. 2040 to resolve this question. Other than these minor technical matters, H.R. 2040 appears to be carefully crafted to accomplish its goal of maintaining the stature of our veterans' cemeteries. The veterans group is especially appreciative of the sponsors' careful, wise, and thoughtful approach to this sensitive issue and urges this Committee to take the same approach and favor this bill over S. 923. The veterans group is also especially grateful for the Chairman's leadership on this matter and the advice he has given sponsors of other related bills.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that July 1997 marks the 50th anniversary of State approving agencies [SAA's] and their representative organization, the National Association of State Approving Agencies [NASAA]. With the enactment of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 and the subsequent implementation of the World War II GI bill, Congress recognized that each State has a right, and responsibility, to monitor the quality of education within its borders. Congress also acknowledged the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure that the readjustment benefits provided by our grateful Nation to our veterans effectively assist in the adjustment to civilian life following military service. Accordingly, Congress established a triangular alliance that has been uniquely successful. Within this three-sided partnership, the SAA approves education and training programs; the Department of Veterans' Affairs administers veterans' education programs; and the institutions and their approved programs provide the training for our veterans--be it educational, professional, or vocational. The philosophy of State approving agency [SAA] personnel can best be described in the Creed of NASAA that was written in 1960 and still stands today-- We believe the veterans education and training program is an important aspect of a free, democratic society, deserving of the rights and benefits bestowed by the Congress of the United States. We believe the security of the country to be vested in the young men and women in our armed forces--that they are the guardians of our people. We believe such sacrifice on their part can and should be offset with opportunities for education and training and other necessary adjustments to help them to a better life for themselves, their families and their communities. We believe that as the Approving Agencies for the education and training programs, we are the working partner of the veteran. We believe most firmly in the future of this partnership-- in its ability to grow and prosper in the pursuit of its acknowledged goal--and we believe that goal to be the proper utilization of the natural abilities of the veterans. We believe that belonging to this partnership we are charged with certain responsibilities and that among these are: maintaining a working knowledge of local and national conditions, methods and problems, providing the trained personnel necessary in giving prompt and efficient service, being always ready and willing to offer guidance on problems, and being always ready and willing to offer guidance on problems, and maintaining high standards to insure each veteran of the best possible training. We believe, finally, that belonging to this partnership is a trust, a trust to be constantly exercised by being at one time a good citizen, a conscientious worker, and by making ours the best program possible--and, if we do this, we believe we will have accomplished our purpose. The contributions of NASAA and its individual member SAA's have been tremendous. SAA personnel have not only worked to ensure the integrity and the success of the various GI bills, but also have been instrumental in the creation and refinement of the programs. They were at the table during discussions about how best to serve the education and training needs of returning Korean war veterans, Vietnam veterans, Desert Storm veterans, and all the others who have served our country through military service. Of special note, SAA's worked side by side with our former colleague and chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the Honorable G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery, to ensure that the Montgomery GI bill would provide the broadest possible education and training opportunities. With their assistance, we were able to expand the Montgomery GI bill to include apprenticeship and other on-the-job training; vocational/technical training, graduate school, and flight training programs. All of this, Mr. Speaker, has been for the purpose of ensuring that our Nation's veterans are never forgotten or disadvantaged because they took time out of their lives to serve their country. Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment NASAA and the member SAA's on the outstanding job that they do in protecting the best interests of those who are serving or have served their country. The world of education and training is changing at lightning speeds. The many new fields of knowledge and the new and innovative ways to deliver instruction have received the immediate and thoughtful attention of SAA personnel because they work diligently to stay in the forefront of education and training. The SAA national training curriculum ensures internal and interstate consistency and a high level of professionalism. A new reporting system provides a common data base of shared information. Additionally, SAA's actively engage in outreach to encourage usage of the MGIB by veterans. In short, NASAA is a progressive organization whose membership works hard--and succeeds--in their efforts to ensure that the education and training programs available to our veterans are the very best that can be offered.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2015 would kill the efforts of the Department of Veterans Affairs from obtaining the resources it needs to meet the health care needs of our Nation's veterans. Earlier this year the administration proposed that appropriations for VA health care remain constant at $17 billion a year for 5 years. Clearly the ability of the VA to provide needed health care service to the Nation's veterans could be seriously jeopardized if the resources required to provide that care were fixed, while the costs of providing care increased. To offset the possible dire consequences of an appropriation freeze, the administration also proposed that VA retain funds it collects from third party payers, insurance companies for example, for some treatment provided by VA to certain veterans. The VA is attempting to collect funds for third party payments, but today those recovered funds are simply deposited by the VA into the General Treasury. On a bipartisan basis the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs rejected this proposal. Our committee believed it jeopardized VA's ability to meet veterans' health care needs and we said so. We told the Committee on the Budget that Congress should continue to fully fund health care through the appropriations process. The Committee on the Budget, however, rejected our committee's views and our recommendations. Under the Committee on the Budget's plan, appropriations for VA health care would not increase for 5 years and third party collections would be retained by the VA to provide veterans' health care. But now under H.R. 2015, the ability of the VA to provide veterans' health care has been further undermined, again ignoring the service provisions in the bill. This bill now makes VA's third party collections subject to appropriations.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow].

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I first want to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] for his leadership on this issue and for his hard work to help our Persian Gulf veterans. This amendment, and our work together in the past, demonstrates a strong, bipartisan effort to come to grips with this issue. I thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], and I am proud to join him as a cosponsor of this amendment. I also want to thank the gentleman for including my provision which would fund clinical trials to evaluate current health care provided to Persian Gulf veterans and examine other potential treatment methods. Unfortunately, DOD and VA research efforts have not completely addressed the efficacy of treatment or the wide variety of treatments used in public and private medicine for undiagnosed illnesses. This point was made by the American Legion in testimony before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs on February 11, 1997. There is no data available on the effectiveness of treatment on Persian Gulf veterans. While this lack of data is disturbing, there is one thing that is perfectly clear: Gulf veterans do not feel that the care currently provided them is making them feel better. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership, his amendment, and strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the history and tradition of the Railroad Industry in America. On June 27 and 28, millions of Americans across the country will celebrate Railroad Day by recognizing the American Railroad Industry and its rich history in this country. Today, I recognize the memory of the men and women who actively participated in the founding and development of the railroad industry-- surveyors, mechanics, engineers, teachers, railroad leaders, miners, financiers, inventors, and government leaders. The railroad industry has had a tremendous influence on American society, impacting the economy, science and technology, national defense, and most important, the transportation of our Nation's citizens. In order to preserve the memory of the efforts of these people, the community of Galesburg, Illinois is erecting a monument dedicated to the accomplishments and contribution of the railroad industry. I have introduced legislation, H. Res. 172 to express the support of this House for this important endeavor. The establishment of a National Railroad Hall of Fame in Galesburg, IL, is a fitting and just reward to a community that has made significant contributions to the railroad industry. The National Railroad Hall of Fame will be a privately funded museum and research facility dedicated to promote and encourage a better understanding of the origins and growth of the railroad industry. It will recognize the contributions of the men and women who actively participated in the founding and development of the American railroads. A library and collection of materials that document and preserves the accomplishments and contributions of the railroad industry will also be housed at the proposed facility. Please join me in recognizing the great value of the railroad industry and its workers have to this country. Please help me celebrate Railroad Days and the importance of the people who built the industry by cosponsoring H. Res. 172, the National Railroad Hall of Fame.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I know of no other group who loves our country more than our Nation's veterans. They have answered our country's call, proudly worn our Nation's uniform and gone into harm's way when asked to do so. Mr. Speaker, I believe most veterans support a balanced Federal budget which is fair and honest. This should come as no surprise to anyone. Again and again veterans have signaled their willingness to do their fair share to achieve this important goal. While veterans are clearly willing to do their fair share, our Federal budget should not be balanced on the backs of those men and women who have served our country honorably and well. For many, their military service meant great hardship and sacrifice. Our Nation's veterans should not be asked to bear an unfair burden in balancing the budget--but that is exactly what is being asked of America's veterans today. Earlier this year, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs considered the budget proposed for veterans. At that time, our committee expressed strong reservations about the budget proposed for veterans health care. That proposal called for a 5-year freeze in appropriations for veterans health care. To offset the devastating impact of this freeze, the Department of Veterans Affairs was to be given the opportunity to retain receipts it was able to collect from third-parties, such as insurance companies, for care which VA provided to some veterans. After careful consideration and deliberation, our committee concluded, ``in our view, there is too much uncertainty about the reliability of VA's projected third-party collections to hinge the provision of health care on these projections.'' Mr. Speaker, my view remains unchanged. The budget plan before us jeopardizes the ability of VA to provide health care to veterans who have honorably served our Nation. Our Nation has a moral obligation to meet the health care needs of these veterans. Indeed, we have a special obligation to those veterans who have a service-connected disability and those veterans who otherwise would not receive the health care they need. Many veterans' service organizations understandably have decided to oppose the budget resolution before us. I understand the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and the Disabled American Veterans are among the major veterans organizations to speak out in opposition to this budget resolution. I believe their opposition is easily understood. Freezing appropriations for veterans health care and making VA health care delivery dependent on third-party collections clearly jeopardizes the health care benefits our veterans have earned. This policy simply asks too much of veterans who have already answered this Nation's call. Our veterans are right to oppose this budget resolution.

Mr. EVANS

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

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. As a result of his efforts, he has put this resolution on a fast track, and it is an important piece of legislation and overdue, I think, in terms of recognizing the contributions of Bob Hope. I salute him for his leadership on this measure and was pleased to join him as a cosponsor of this legislation we originally introduced. Perhaps more than any other person, Bob Hope has done more to lift the spirits of men and women in uniform when those spirits needed to be raised the most. On behalf of the countless service men and women who Bob Hope has entertained throughout his long and distinguished career, we say to Bob Hope, thanks for the memories and for a job well done. The honor bestowed on Bob Hope by House Joint Resolution 75 is well deserved. I look forward to favorable consideration of this resolution by our colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, this Monday is Memorial Day. Members of Congress will be home in joining with our constituents at many important ceremonies honoring the memory of those who sacrificed their life in the service of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, one of our new Members, Walter Capps, of California, will be giving the keynote address as a major Memorial Day gathering in Los Osos, CA. Congressman Capps is a true friend of those currently serving in the military and a staunch advocate on behalf of our veterans and their families. Representative Capps has shared his planned remarks with me. I am pleased to submit a copy of Representative Capps' remarks into the Congressional Record moving speech and I urge my colleagues to read and reflect on his remarks. In Our Hearts (By Walter Capps) Corporal Haley, Father Kozanecki, Master Sergeant Martin, Supervisor Laurent, Reverend Ford, esteemed Veterans, ladies, and gentlemen. It is a humbling and awesome task to stand before 1,000 people this morning in this breathtaking location to help observe Memorial Day. Today, all over this great nation, Americans from every walk of life are taking time to honor the memory and reflect on the sacrifices of those who gave their lives so that we can live our lives in peace and freedom. Today more than any day, they are in our hearts. And just as importantly, we pay tribute to those--like the hundreds in this gathering today--who served in our military forces. You may not have given your lives, but you certainly gave of your bodies and souls in defense of your country and the cherished principles which make our nation so great. You too are in our hearts. From the first shot fired of the Revolutionary War to the scud missile casualties in the Persian Gulf, nearly 1.2 million Americans have been killed at war. This statistic is staggering. Simply uttering it and moving on threatens to obscure the individuality of each fallen man or woman, and to dim the historic lessons of each American conflict. The first Memorial Day was observed on May 30, 1868, three years after the Civil War set our nation against itself and claimed the lives of half a million people from the Union and the Confederacy. Nearly 130 years later, these deaths must remind us of the urgency to settle our own differences under the rule of law and with the decency of a civil society. We must never resort to the internal warfare that has killed countless people across the globe--from Zaire to Chechnya--even this year. And the lesson of the Civil War about the cruelties and degradation of racial bigotry are sadly those that still have not been fully realized by our society. Many of you fought in World War II. In fact, some have made their home in this beautiful county because you trained here before shipping out overseas. To you, and your 400,000 comrades in arms who perished in Europe and in the Pacific, the world will forever owe a priceless debt of gratitude for vanquishing tyrants who committed unspeakable crimes against innocent people and who threatened the very existence of civilized life on earth. The lessons of World War II, of course, are that we can never tolerate the unchecked genocidal passions of ruthless dictators and expansionist military campaigns which threaten fellow democracies and even our own shores. I see many Vietnam vets here today. I have known and worked with some of you since I first came to California 32 years ago and began teaching a university course on the Vietnam War. The lessons of the Vietnam war are profound. From this war, we learned that we must never blame the war on the warriors. The sad fact that more Vietnam vets have killed themselves than died on the battlefield teaches us that when we send soldiers to war, we must, as a nation, support them when they return. And from the Vietnam war, we must resolve only to send U.S. troops into harm's way when critical American strategic or moral interests demand our engagement, and never make this decision out of a sense of ideological zealotry. Those who join us today who served in World War I, Korea, the Gulf War, and other conflicts and peacekeeping missions have, of course, made their own special contributions in defense of American security and values. My friends, I have participated in Memorial Day exercises for many years, but this is the first year that I have been honored to do so as your Congressman. It is an unparalleled honor and high privilege to represent our communities and its people in our nation's capital. And as your Representative, I have new challenges and responsibilities. As a Congressman, I have no higher duty than to preserve the security of our nation by ensuring that our military remains the best trained, best equipped, and most prepared in the world. Yes, even in the age of budget cuts and downsizing, we can and must maintain an efficient and cost- effective military skilled not only in conventional warfare, but at combating the new enemies of terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime. As a Congressman, and a Member of the International Relations Committee, I am doing all I can to rid the world of the most horrifying weaponry of past and potential wars. I am active in the efforts to ban antipersonnel land mines and am pushing for swift action on the critical chemical weapons treaty. As a Congressman, I am committed to maintaining the highest level of Federal benefits for our veterans and their families. In this effort, I will continue my previous work as a private citizen, when I helped bring the first ever Vet Center to Santa Barbara. I am, for example, cosponsoring legislation to ensure that veterans receive substantial health benefits and that they are never shortchanged on retirement pay. And I am proud to say that my office has been able to help a number of veterans secure medals to which they were entitled but never received. As a Congressman, I will keep pushing our government and the governments of Vietnam and other former adversaries to leave no stone unturned in our sacred battle to determine the final status of all the brave combatants who are still missing in action. And as a Congressman, I will honor the memory of those who died in service of our nation by trying to preserve the unique American values for which they fought. Today is the day when all of us should pledge to redouble our fight to ensure that the basic rights we all enjoy--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the freedoms afforded by our democratic political system are never, ever, diminished. My friends, some of you know that I was born in Omaha, Nebraska. That's why I'm particularly proud to quote the inscription that many of you have read for yourselves at the Omaha Beach Cemetery in Normandy: ``To these we owe our highest resolve, that the cause for which they died shall live.'' Freedom, peace, justice, dignity, and prosperity. These are the qualities of life all of us here on the Central Coast and across America enjoy. We must never take them for granted. And we must forever remember and honor those who fought and died for the cherished causes that will endure for generations to come. Today, and every day, they are in our hearts.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the problem of sexual harassment is not new to our society, let alone our Federal work force. It has been only in the past decade or so, however, that we in Congress have begun to truly recognize the depths of the problem and attempted to eliminate if from the workplace--even if such harassment comes from the highest levels of management. As recent testimony before the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has revealed, sexual harassment has been no stranger to the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] over the past few years. Despite what I consider the sincere efforts of VA Secretary Jesse Brown, the VA's zero tolerance policy against sexual harassment has failed. In one highly publicized case brought to light during hearings last month, several VA employees had the courage to raise serious, substantiated allegations of sexual harassment against their boss, the Director of the Fayettesville, NC, facility. One employee was demoted after she rejected the Director's advances. When the filed charges of harassment with her immediate supervisor she was told she had little chance of succeeding on her claim because the accused was a powerful hospital director. In open testimony before our committee, she testified under oath that life had become so difficult for her at the facility that she was literally afraid to go to work each day, and ultimately transferred at her own expense to another VA hospital to get away from the Fayetteville Director. Other employees testified that the same Director commonly made references to various parts of their female anatomy, commonly used profanity, and made sexually suggestive comments toward them, and in one case grabbed an employee's breasts at a Christmas party. Still, when some of these women attempted to file charges of harassment against the Director, local and regional VA counsels discouraged them from pursuing such claims and provided incorrect information concerning how and when to file discrimination charges. Even amidst substantiated allegations of harassment and abusive treatment of women in the Fayetteville, NC, facility, the VA's solution was to transfer the Fayetteville Director to sunny Bay Pines, FL--the Director's planned retirement destination--with a pay increase and lessened responsibilities. The VA also paid his moving expenses, and specifically allowed him to be considered for a return to the Senior Executive Service [SES] in 3 years. The female victims of the Director's abuse, meanwhile, continue to suffer the lingering traumatic effects of his harassment. Unfortunately, little has changed in the VA workplace since 1992, when I first chaired oversight subcommittee hearings on this issue. At that time, we heard equally compelling testimony from a legion of women who also were subjected to abusive and hostile treatment by senior level managers in the VA workplace. Incredibly, one woman who testified during the 1992 hearing presently remains on disability leave from the VA, still unable to return to work because of the emotional trauma she suffered at the hands of her senior level VA harasser. That is why today I am pleased to join as an original cosponsor of the Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Discrimination Prevention Act. This bipartisan legislation, introduced today in the House, revamps the way VA investigates internal allegations of sexual harassment by, and against, its own employees and seeks to bring confidence and trust to the EEO process at the VA. Boiled down to its essence, this legislation changes the way charges of harassment and other discrimination claims are handled within the VA; instead of allowing claims to be investigated by poorly trained collateral duty employees at the very facility where the harassment or discrimination is said to exist, our bill requires that all such claims be investigated and reviewed by well-trained central office employment law experts with no direct ties to the VA facility where the discrimination has allegedly occurred. In addition, the bill calls for the final agency determination to be made by independent administrative law judges [ALJ's] rather than VA bureaucrats. This bill will help ensure that well-trained specialists investigate such claims, and will directly address the all-too-familiar scenario where a poorly trained, lower level VA employee is asked to investigate harassment or discrimination charges against a senior official who may have everything to say about his or her continued employment with the agency. I sponsored a nearly identical version of this legislation which overwhelmingly passed the House in the 103d Congress, but was never acted on in the Senate. At that time, the VA believed that a proposed Government-wide reform of the equal employment opportunity [EEO] processes at all Federal agencies would occur. The VA opposed the legislation on that basis, and also indicated that many of the changes called for in the bill could be made administratively. Nearly 5 years later there has been no Government-wide reform of the EEO process, there has been no major overhaul of the VA EEO administrative process, and the VA's well-intentioned zero tolerance policy has proven to be ineffective. We cannot be expected to wait any longer for meaningful reform of the VA EEO process to occur. More importantly, this Nation's veterans and the VA employees dedicated to serving them cannot be expected to wait any longer for meaningful action and honest reform. By enacting this legislation, we in Congress can help put the VA back on the path toward eradicating discrimination at the work place. Our veterans and VA employees deserve no less.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I know we all applaud President Clinton's decision last year to seek a global ban on antipersonnel landsmines, but the administration is seeking to achieve a ban through the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, known as the CD. Since the CD operates by consensus, any Nation that opposes this ban can hold up the progress of achieving such a ban. This year, however, the Canadian Government will be hosting a conference at the end of the year to negotiate a ban treaty. Over 50 nations have agreed to sign the treaty at the conference. It is our best chance to get a treaty this year. United States leadership is crucial to the success of the Canadians efforts. I urge my colleagues to urge the President to help stop the endless cycle of violence produced by AP landmines by helping us get a treaty this year through the Canadian conference.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Betsy Beamf, of Princeton, IL, and Emily Dutton, of Lewiston, IL. This weekend they will receive the Girl Scouts Gold Award from the Kickapoo Council of Girl Scouts, and I congratulate them on this occasion. The Girl Scouts Gold Award represents the highest honor in Girl Scouting and recognizes significant achievement in leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. While Girl Scouting has provided these young adults a supportive setting in which to learn from and work with their peers in a group, Emily and Betsy have earned this award through their own individual commitment of over 50 hours of exceptional service. Through her performance of plays for local youth, Betsy has fostered a greater appreciation for the world of theater and drama among the children in her community. Emily drew upon her artistic talents to design and create a mural in her school that promotes good sportsmanship. At a time when Americans nationwide have placed a renewed emphasis on community service as a way of improving our society, Emily and Betsy exemplify the kind of dedication and commitment we need from people of all ages. Mr. Speaker, we as a nation are enriched by the efforts of Betsy and Emily, and the thousands of children like them who give of themselves to benefit their communities each day. I hope that they are proud of themselves, and I am sure that their families take great pride in them. I encourage them to continue to take an active role in the community and wish them every success in the future.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today I have joined with Congressman Stump, many of the Republican and all of the Democratic members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee to introduce the Veterans Medicare Reimbursement Demonstration Act of 1997. This strong show of support by so many members of the committee clearly indicates the high priority my colleagues and I give this legislation. For some time our committee has been exploring the intra-government transfer, or subvention, from Medicare to VA. This year the committee began the process at the urging of veterans and the Veterans Health Administration. Veterans wanted to gain access to the veterans health care system. VA felt it was in their best interest to explore nonappropriated funding as a growing part of their resource base. VA has submitted a budget during this session of Congress that identified VA collecting and keeping funding from the Medicare trust funds for treatment of certain Medicare-eligible veterans. This is a critical part of the strategy VA has outlined for its future. The Independent Budget, an assessment of veterans programs' resource needs written by four of the major veterans' service organizations and sponsored by many more, also endorses the concept of using Medicare funds in VA. I am convinced the Veterans Medicare Reimbursement Demonstration Act of 1997 we are introducing today offers the best and the most risk-free way of exploring the viability of this funding option for both VA and for Medicare. This bill does not propose VHA develop a new managed care system tailored to treating a new population of veterans. Instead, it provides VA the opportunity to offer the services it has available to treat aging veterans who might not otherwise receive this care. This will allow VA to limit its care responsibility for new veterans to the services and capabilities that it has available right now. In addition, the demonstration project authorized by this legislation is time- and site-limited. There are additional safeguards in place to ensure that the Medicare trust fund will not spend any additional funding for veterans who choose VA as a health care provider. The veterans that this bill will affect are lower and middle-income veterans--some of whom have lost access to VA health care services as constrained resources have compelled VA to stop treating so-called discretionary veterans. VA will receive no funding from Medicare for veterans who are receiving care in VA medical centers today. We believe that our bill creates opportunities for everyone involved to benefit. The Medicare trust funds have a chance to save money because VA will discount Medicare's rates for providing care to the new Medicare-eligible veterans it will treat. Specifically, Medicare would receive a mandatory 5-percent discount on its reimbursement for services provided to eligible veterans in VA. For this reason, it is our strong view that this bill will produce savings for the Medicare trust funds. VA will benefit by opening its doors to care for new veterans. Most importantly, veterans will benefit by having a new choice of health care provider. I hope that my colleagues will view this bill, not just as a bill good for veterans, but as an opportunity to help preserve Medicare for older Americans as well.

Mr. EVANS

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

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona, Bob Stump, for helping us get this bill through the committee process so quickly this year. Without his diligence we would not be here this afternoon. I appreciate it very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the most significant change made by this bill would be the new authority for veterans with prior claims involving clear and unmistakable errors to resubmit their claims for new review by the Board of Veterans Appeals. Under present law, a veteran has no right to obtain review of clear and unmistakable errors in the previous decision of the board, no matter how blatant that error. In the cases where the asserted error was made by the regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs, this right already exists by regulation. My bill would codify this regulation in title 38. The kinds of errors which this bill would rectify are those which are undebatable. These are errors which when called to the attention of a subsequent reviewer, compel the conclusion that but for the error, the result would have been manifestly different. The bill also addresses the situations where evidence in the veteran's file at the time of the prior decision was ignored or wrongfully evaluated under the law as it existed at the time of the original decision. This legislation would give veterans the same kind of opportunity to pursue an erroneous claim decision now provided to Social Security beneficiaries when they had been given misinformation. Veterans deserve the same rights as Social Security recipients to have errors corrected. H.R. 1090 also provides for a limited expansion of the right for judicial review. Veterans who initiate a claim of clear and unmistakable error in either a prior regional office decision or a prior Board of Veterans Appeals decision would be able to appeal that claim through the administrative process to the Court of Veterans Appeals. Once the court had ruled on the issue, no further claims of clear and unmistakable error could be pursued at the administrative level. This bill is identical to legislation passed by the Congress last session, and it has strong support from the Disabled American Veterans, as well as other veterans' service organizations. This legislation is about justice for our veterans. Veterans who have given first-class service to our country should not be experiencing anything less than first-class justice. I want to thank my colleagues for their support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, thank you for your willingness to cosponsor this important bill. The most significant change made by this bill is to authorize veterans with prior claims involving clear and unmistakable errors to resubmit their claims for a new review by the Board of Veterans Appeals. Because there is presently no statute or regulation allowing a veteran to claim clear and unmistakable error in a prior decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals, the erroneous decision is binding on the veteran no matter how obvious and egregious the error. In cases where the asserted error was made by a Regional Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA], a VA regulation permits the veteran to assert clear and unmistakable error in a prior decision. H.R. 1090 would codify this regulation in title 38. The absence of a statute addressing the issue of clear and unmistakable error creates an anomaly by which a veteran who previously appealed a claim to the Board of Veterans Appeals on the basis of clear and unmistakable error is placed in a worse position than a veteran who never appealed the original Regional Office decision. The kind of errors which this bill will rectify are those which are egregious and undebatable. These are errors which when called to the attention of a subsequent reviewer compel the conclusion that, but for that error, the result would have been manifestly different. The need for this legislation is illustrated by Precedent Opinion 2-97 recently issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs General Counsel. That opinion, which is binding on all levels of the administrative process, affirmed that if a BVA decision is rendered based upon an erroneous interpretation of the law, that decision is final and binding on all VA components unless the Board reconsiders the decision. Under present law, only the VA, and not the veteran has the right to obtain reconsideration of a Board decision. Unlike other actions of the Board, reconsideration decisions are not subject to judicial review. The following cases brought by veterans who sought review of prior decisions illustrate the kinds of clear and unmistakable errors which would be subject to correction under this legislation. A veteran with an above-the-knee amputation due to a service- connected condition was entitled to a 60 percent rating under existing law. If at the time of the original rating, the veteran's file showed that he had an above-the-knee amputation, but received only a 40 percent rating, clear and unmistakable error would exist. Under present law, if the Board of Appeals had previously found that their was no clear and unmistakable error in the rating, this veteran could seek, but not compel reconsideration and would have no remedy if the request was denied. Under this bill, the veteran would have the right to have the Board review his claim of clear and unmistakable error and, if dissatisfied with that decision, could seek review in the Court of Veterans Appeals. A veteran was shot by a single bullet traveling through both the upper and lower leg while in combat. He was awarded service-connection for the injury to the lower leg, but not for the injury to the thigh. Since the record at the time of the original decision showed through and through wounds of both the upper and lower leg, both wounds should have been rated. The failure to rate both wounds would constitute clear and unmistakable error. Since a Regional Office of the VA had made the original clear and unmistakable error, present regulations allow it to be corrected. Under this bill, such a condition could be similarly revisited even if the clear and unmistakable error had been made at the Board of Veterans Appeals. The bill also addresses those situations where evidence in the veteran's file at the time of the prior decision was ignored or wrongly evaluated under the law as it existed at the time of the original decision. For example, if a dependent's benefit had been wrongly denied because a legal and valid adoption was not recognized by the VA, the bill would allow for correction of the error. This legislation would provide veterans an opportunity similar to that presently provided to Social Security beneficiaries under title 42 of the United States Code, sections 402(j)(5) and 1383(e)(5). Under those provisions an individual may receive retroactive benefits when a claim for benefits was not pursued due to misinformation provided by any officer or employee of the Social Security Administration. The standard for claims of clear and unmistakable error is similar to the standard currently contained in Social Security regulations at 42 Code of Federal Regulations, section 404.988, for revision of a claim at any time due to error that appears on the face of the evidence considered when the determination or decision was made. Veterans deserve the same right as Social Security beneficiaries to have manifest errors corrected. The bill does not alter the standard for evaluation of claims of clear and unmistakable error. In order to sustain such a claim, the veteran must specifically identify the alleged error. The claim must assert either a basic error of law or fact in the prior decision or must give persuasive reasons as to why the outcome would be manifestly different had the error not been made. Once a claim of clear and unmistakable error has been raised and decided, the veteran may not raise the same claim again. This legislation also provides for a limited expansion of the right to judicial review. This expansion is premised upon an understanding that the error in the original adjudication of the claim was so egregious that it should be revised to conform to the true state of the law and the facts as they existed at the time of the original decision. Veterans who initiate a claim of clear and unmistakable error in either a prior Regional Office decision or a prior Board of Veterans Appeals decision would be able to appeal that claim through the administrative process to the Court of Veterans Appeals. Once the court had ruled on the issue, no further claims of clear and unmistakable error could be pursued at the administrative level. H.R. 1090 is identical to legislation approved by the House last Congress. It is not concerned with minor disputes or the weight given to evidence. Instead it provides an avenue of correction of only those serious and obvious errors about which there can be no doubt. The bill has strong support from the veterans service organizations. This legislation is about justice for veterans. Veterans who have honorably served our country deserve no less. Where the prior adjudication of claims are found to contain egregious violations of law, veterans should have an opportunity for a full and fair consideration of the errors. Our Nation's veterans are entitled to this. I thank my colleagues, including the 46 cosponsors of this bill, for their support of H.R. 1090.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This legislation is an important measure for our Nation's veterans. I encourage all of our colleagues to support its approval today by the House. In the interests of time, Mr. Speaker, I would limit my comments on H.R. 1092 to title II of the bill. Title II of this bill renames the Court of Veterans Appeals. This title of the bill incorporates the provisions of H.R. 1089, which I introduced on March 18, 1997. Too often veterans and others have been confused with the Court of Veterans Appeals and with the Board of Veterans Appeals. I understand this confusion has caused the court to record a message advising callers that they had reached the Court of Veterans Appeals. The caller is then instructed to dial a different number if he or she is inquiring about the status of a case before the Board of Veterans Appeals. This change was requested and recommended by the chief judge of the court, Judge Nebeker, in recent testimony before the committee. The new name, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, is consistent with the name of other similar appellate courts and should help end this widespread confusion. Title II also changes the name of the National Cemetery System to the National Cemetery Administration, and designates the head of the National Cemetery Administration as the Assistant Secretary for Memorial Affairs. The reference to Memorial Affairs reflects the broader functions assigned to the Office of the Assistant Secretary. Title III of this bill will simply codify the fiscal year 1997 compensation rate increase previously adopted. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have joined with Chairman Stump in the introduction of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].

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

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise in strong support of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act. For the first time, wartime veterans and service-connected- disabled veterans will have access to an effective appellate process if they believe their rights under veterans' preference laws have been violated. Additionally, the bill will provide meaningful protection during a reduction in force for all preference eligibles. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Moran], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] for their bipartisan efforts on behalf of our Nation's veterans. I also want to mention the good advice and hard work the representatives of the veterans' service organizations have contributed to the development of this legislation. Their assistance and cooperation was invaluable. H.R. 240 is an excellent bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. EVANS

Mr. EVANS. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. At the end of World War II, General Patton, while eulogizing our American war dead, reminded our grieving Nation that it is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived. And those words sustain us as we remember our colleague Frank Tejeda today. Rather than mourning his too early death, let us thank God for his life, let us thank God that we had the opportunity to work with him and let us thank God that we had the privilege to know him. Frank was a favorite in this House of Representatives. He was a friendly, decent, kind, and quiet man. His participation in a hearing or meeting guaranteed civility and tolerance. When he spoke others listened. I firmly believe that his notable courtesy and obvious concern and regard for the views of others was the result of a lifetime of challenges that he faced as a young man growing up in San Antonio, as a highly decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam, as a student at three of our country's most highly respected institutions of higher education, University of California, Harvard, and Yale. As a fellow member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I know that Frank's thoughtful and informed comments and constructive participation were well regarded. He was among the first to sound the alarm concerning gulf veterans' problems. He championed improvements in the GI bill. He fought to ensure that many veterans living in San Antonio were well cared for and taken care of at the Audie Murphy Hospital in San Antonio. I was also privileged to serve with him on the Committee on National Security, where his faithful and effective participation demonstrated his commitment to the members of our Armed Forces and to a strong national defense. We all considered Frank to be a good friend and colleague. Our admiration grew, however, into a real sense of awe as we watched him literally wage the battle of his life, a fight that he carried on with enormous courage and dignity. None of us will ever forget the Honorable Frank Tejeda or the special grace with which he lived his life. Our deepest sympathy goes to his family, his loyal and devoted staff, and the residents of the 28th Congressional District of Texas, who Frank so ably represented here in Congress. Please let us know what we in this House can do in any way to help you during the difficult months ahead. Let us all thank God for the life of Frank Tejeda.