Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

[From the Congressional Record, Vol. 130, No. 12, pp. S1084-S1089--Senate, February 7, 1984]

VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION HEALTH-CARE

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1984

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am today introducing for myself and Senators RANDOLPH, MATSUNAGA, and DECONCINI

8. 2269, the proposed Veterans' Administration Health-Care Program Improvements Act of 1984. This measure addresses a variety of issues relating primarily to Veterans' Administration health-care services. Its basic underlying purpose is the continued Improvement of the VA's ability to meet the needs of our Nation's veterans and their dependents. The VA, as the principal Federal agency with responsibility for providing for our veterans and their survivors, must be given the leg. islative authorities it needs in these rapidly changing times in order to carry out its mission fully and effectively. Our bill is directed toward that end.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

Mr. President, the eight substantive provisions of our bill would:

First, expand the definition of the Vietnam era for the purposes of title 38, United States Code, so as to include service in Vietnam at any time during the period beginning on July 8, 1959 and ending on August 4, 1964, the day before the starting date of the Vietnam era in current law.

Second, in cases in which a veteran's family members have been receiving counseling or mental health services from the VA in connection with the veteran's care or counseling, authorise the VA to continue to provide services to those family members for a period of up to 6 months following the veteran's death.

Third, provide persons still on active duty in the Armed Forces who served during the Vietnam era with eligibility for VA readjustment counseling and authorize the Administrator of Veter ans' Affairs to provide such eligibility to persons who served in the Armed Forces after the Vietnam era in combat-like situations.

Fourth, make permanent the VA's current, pilot-program authority to place veterans with alcohol or drug abuse dependencies or disabilities in non-VA halfway houses and other community-based programs for treatment and rehabilitation.

Fifth, provide the Administrator with new authority to increase rates of pay. for recruitment and retention purposes, for protective services employees at VA health care facilities.

Sixth, modify the due date of a recurring Comptroller General's report on the Director of the Office of Management and Budget's compliance with certain statutory requirements relating to funded personnel ceilings for the VA's Department of Medicine and Surgery.

Seventh, require the Administrator to develop criteria pursuant to which applications for grants for the construction, remodeling, expansion, or alteration of State veterans' home

facilities can be awarded on a basis, other than first-come, first-served.

Eighth, direct the Administrator and the Secretaries of Defense and of Health and Human Services to submit to the Congress a joint report setting forth and evaluating various alterna Live approaches pursuant to which the Federal Government might provide benefits, services, and assistance relat ing to disabilities that possibly result from certain aspects of service in Vietnam-such as exposure to agent orange or to particularly traumatic events-in individuals who were present there during the Vietnam era as civilian employees of the Federal Government or of organizations that provided significant assistance to US. forces, such as the American Red Cross or the USO.

VIETNAM-ZRA VETERANS READJUSTMENT

COUNSELING PROGRAM

Mr. President, the VA's program for providing readjustment counseling to Vietnam-era veterans, which was initially authorized in 1979, continues to be the most important and effective Government program for assisting those Vietnam-era veterans who have experienced readjustment difficulties since their service. Although there are some problems in the operation of the program-most notably in the fee-forservice portion-I am satisfied that this program, now operating out of 135 Vet centers, is very successful. Last year. in Public Law 98-160, the program as it is presently constituted was given a 4-year extension, until September 30, 1988. This extension should provide sufficient long-term stability for the program to permit appropriate management improvements to be made. With feference to the fee-forservice portion of the program. I act unanimous consent that a recent exchange of letters that I had with the VA-my December 9, 1983, letter to the VA's Chief Medical Director, Dr. Donald Custis, and Dr. Custis January 20, 1984, letter in response-be printed in the RECORD at this paint.

There being no objection. the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

U.S. SENATE.

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS, Washington, DC., December 9, 1983. Dr. DONALD L.. CUSTIS. Chief Medical Director. Veterans' Adminis tration, Washington, DC.

DEAR Don, as you know, I have had an ongoing interest in the status of the contract between the Veterans Administration and Swords to Plowshares or the provision of readjustment counseling. In this connection. I recently had the opportunity to review the October 28, 1983, opinion of the General Counsel regarding the payment of certain sums under that contract. That opinion includes the following statement:

[We hope that the confusion and difficulty encountered in connection with the ad ministration of this contract will demon. strate the need for a complete review and evaluation of all contracts now outstanding Lo provide readjustment counseling, as well as a new awareness within the VA of the need for improved contract management and oversight.

I agree wholeheartedly about the need for a "complete review and evaluation of all gontracts" and for "improved contract man

agement and oversight", and urge your prompt consideration of these actions.

In view of the problems that have come to light regarding the administration of these contracts, I believe it is vitally important at this time that all existing contracts be re viewed to determine which services are being provided and to which veterans. It is even more important that the agency, as soon as possible, decide how best to monitor the fee/contract program in the future and then commit the resources necessary-inclading the personnel needed to carry out that task

As successful as the readjustment counsel ing program has generally been through the Vet Centers in belping a great many Vietnamera veterans and their families deal more effectively with post-war readjustment difficulties, questions about the fee-basis portion of the program have persisted from that program's inception. They have now reached a point where, unless satisfactorily resolved, they threaten to undermine the reputation of and support for the entire program.

In a May 17, 1982, letter to me, you stated that the Readjustment Counseling Service is addressing itself to developing a mechamisen for monitoring the Lee/contract) program as to consistency, quality, and cost-e fectiveness" The current controversy sur rounding the Swords to Plowshares contract and numerous reports of similar situations involving other contracts as to which inad equate monitoring of contractors is also al leged would seem to be compelling evidence that the efforts described as being underway eighteen months ago have yet to be successful.

In carrying out the review and evaluation called for by the General Counsel, I believe that the agency should, at a minimum, address the following questions

(1) A. Should the monitoring of contracts for readjustment counseling remain with the Readjustment Counseling Service or should some other office in the agency (e.g. the Office of Procurement and Supply) be given this responsibility?

If the actual monitoring function is shifted, should the Readjustment Counseling Service remain responsible for providing technical assistance (ie., orientation, educa tion, and training assistance) to contractors?

(2) In view of the answers to question 1. how many additional PTEE are meded for contract monitoring and how many for technical assistance purposes and where should the personnel be located?

(8) What should the general qualifications be for individuals in such positions and should they have prior experience with the Vet Center program?

With respect to question 1, I believe these is very strong reason for retaining this responsibility in the Readjustment Counsel ing Service field locations where the actual counseling experience and the knowledge of local veterans and conditions is so abundant. Also, the very great need for the perform. ance of this technical assistance function for many contracten without extensive Vietnam veteran readjustment counseling experience raises two related questions: Whether the amount of technical assistance required suggests that too many resources are currently being allocated to contract services? Would not It enhance the program if some of these resources were used to expand in-house efforts over which the agency can exercise greater quality control?

With respect to question 2 regarding the number of FTEE needed, I note that, when 'the responsibility was initially given to the Readjustment Counseling Service to moni tor contractors and to provide technical as sistance, no additional personnel were as signed to the Vet Center program to carry out these new Laska. This crouted many elta

ations around the country in which Vet Center personnel were forced, to the detri ment of the overall pragram, to choose be(ween carrying out the new responsibilities god fulfilling their oltrer duties. For example, I have been advised that the Seattle. Washington, Vet Caster team leader, in addition to his team leader responsibilities. was assigned moaktoring and technical assistance responsibilities with respect to con tractors who are located over a wide geographic area and to whom the VA might my out over $300,000 in one year for counseling services. Plainly, it is not possible for ane person to carry out effectively such multiple responsibilities.

Thus, if the agency should decide that either the monitoring or the technical assistance responsibility, or both, should remato with the Vet Center program, I be lieve that it is vital that additional personmel be assigned for such purpose or purposes. One suggestion that might be considered in the event of such a decision would be to employ farmer Vet Center personnelparticularly those who have been involved in direct counseling but who need some relief from the stress of that role-to work with fee/contract providers.)

On a selated matter, you will recall that we exchanged a number of letters last year and earlier this year that addressed, among other issues, the agency's projection for using fiscal year 1983 rendjustment counseling monies for fee basis contracts. In that correspondence and in other ways, I repeatedly arged that steps be taken to avoid sponding for non-readjustment counseling purposes any of the funds that the agency had identified as intended but which were not needed for the fee/contract program. I deeply regret that this result was not avoided; indeed, it is doubly regrettable that the purpose of these expenditures bears no direct relationship whatsoever to Veitnamera veterans.

An I did last year, I strongly urge that the agency estimate as soon as posible-the approximate ambual that will be expended in the current fiscal year on the fee/con. "tract portion of the program. To the extent that that amount is less than the $11 mi Mion that the agency has noted, in response to questions fallowing our Committee's Februsky 16, 1983, hearing on the FY 1984 budget, were to be devoted to such purpose. the agency should promptly determine and thereafter advise the Appropriations and Veterans Affairs Committees in both Houses how it proposes to utilize the bal. arice of those earmarked funds. I very much hope you will move forward on this sugges tion immediately.

Dom, I deeply appreciate your continuing Esoperation and assistance and your atten.

on to abis particular mutter. I look forward to receiving your response to this letter as soon as possible, and would greatly appreciate your addressing specifically each of the points discussed above.

With warm regards, Cordially.

ALAN CRANSTON, Ranking Minority Member.

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE AND
SURGERY.

Washington, D.C., January 20, 1996.
Hon. ALAN CRANSTOR
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, United States Senate,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR CRANSTON: Thank you for your letter of December 9, 1983 concerning the readjustment counseling program and the management of the fees/contract proFram.

DM&8 Circular 10-83-100, A-123 Internal Control Systems, Identifies certain areas as being highly vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. Within the readjustment counseling program, we are concerned about the per

formance of contractors providing counseling services. An internal control review of the fees/contract program was originally scheduled to be conducted in May 1984. We decided to accelerate that timetable. A task force was formed in mid-October to examine various aspects of the contracta program in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the circular cited above. This task force is chaired by Mr. Albert B. Washko, Director of the Albany, New York, VA Medical Center, and is working closely with the Office of Procurement and Supply, Medical Administration Service and Readjustment Counseling Bervice in Central Office. Their goal is to identify potential problems involv. ing the fees/contract program at the field and VA Central Office levels; developing a format for review of internal controls; and making recommendations to improve the management and monitoring of this $11.7 million program.

Immediately following the completion of the first quarter, we shall be reviewing our current obligations for the fees/contract program and making an estimate for total fiscal year 1984 expenditures. I shall provide this figure to you once it is available.

In addition, we are now studying the possibility of contracting out for some monitor. ing of the contracts program. I shall be pleased to keep you informed of our initia tives in that area.

Your suggestions and concerns for the readjustment counseling program are appreci ated.

Sincerely.

DONALD L. CUSTIS, M.D., Chief Medical Director. Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, under current law, section 612A of title 38, eligibility for readjustment counseling services is limited to veter. ans of the Vietnam era and in certain circumstances, their family members.

The measure we are introducing today would make four changes in the law to expand the list of those eligible for such services.

First, individuals who served during the Vietnam era but who are still on active duty-and thus not veterans under the applicable title 38, United States Code, definition-would be made eligible for readjustment counseling. Although I am aware of no data suggesting an unmet counseling need among large numbers of activeduty personnel, I have heard from a number of individuals working in the program about requests for help from active-duty personnel. In any event, I do not believe that any individual who served in the Armed Forces during the Vietnam era and feels a need for readjustment counseling should be barred from eligibility simply because he or she is still on active duty. Section 4 of the bill would remove that bar.

Second, by virtue of an amendment to the definition of "Vietnam-era" in section 101(29) of title 38, United States Code, our bill would provide ellgibility to certain veterans who served in Vietnam before the beginning of the Vietnam era. Under current law, the Vietnam era is defined as the period beginning on August 5, 1964, and ending on May 7, 1975. The starting date coincides with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which was unquestionably a watershed event in the history of US. Involvement in Vietnam. However, there were many US troops in Vietnam prior to that date and, as shown by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the Mall here in Washington, D.C.-on which the first person

listed died from hostile fire in. 1959these service personnel were under combat conditions well prior to 1964.

Mr. President, there are a number of practical difficulties in setting fixed. dates for a period of hostilities, such as the Vietnam era, and I note that there were a variety of responses to this proposal to modify the starting date of the Vietnam era when it was before the committee in 8. 11 last year. Nevertheless, I do not believe that it is appropriate to continue to tell those individuals who were exposed to armed hostilities in Vietnam prior to August 1964 that they are not veterans of a period of war. Thus, section 2 of the bill would amend title 38 to provide that for those veterans who served in Vietnam, the Vietnam era begins on July 8, 1959-the date the first U.S. military personnel were killed by enemy action in Vietnam. In addition to providing eligibility for readjustment counseling to those who served in Vietnam between that date and August 5, 1964, this change would provide them with general eligibility for certain other needs-based VA benefits, as well as employment assistance.

Mr. President, in selecting the date of July 8, 1959, as the beginning date for the Vietnam era, I note that I am aware of other dates that could be used. For example, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, in testimony last year on S. 11, suggested the date of July 1, 1958, the beginning date for award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for service in Vietnam. Also, section 1440 of title 8, United States Code, relating to the naturalization of aliens through active-duty service during periods of military hostilities, uses February 28, 1961, as the beginning of hostilities in Vietnam. Third, the Congressional Charter of the American Legon, which is set forth in section 45 of title 36, United States Code, uses the date of December 22, 1961, the date of the first direct combat-related death of a member of the Military Advisory Command Vietnam, to begin the Vietnam era. Cogent arguments can be made for any of these dates or others, and I hope that the committee will pursue this issue further this year.

Third, section 4 of the bill would provide for expanding the period of service that makes an individual eligible for readjustment counseling to include certain service after May 7, 1975, the end of the Vietnam era. Thus, the Administrator would be authorized to specify service during periods of time and in specific locations in which U.S. Armed Forces were under hostile fire as qualifying service for readjustment counseling purposes. This provision recognizes that members of our Armed Forces are at times exposed to situations short of declared war-such as exist in Beirut at present or on Grenada during the invasion of that island last year-that might produce the need for readjustment counseling after their service. I want to stress my view that this authority, if enacted, should be used by the Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary of Defense, only in very limited circumstances in which our service per

sonnel actually experience combatlike situations.

Mr. President, a final provision in the measure in section 3 relates to ellgibility for readjustment counseling assistance. Under current law, the VA may provide mental health counseling and certain other services to the family members of a veteran when doing so is necessary for the effective treatment of the veteran. This authority is availabile in the readjustment counseling program for the provision of services to the family of a veteran who is receiving readjustment counseling. All indications that I have received regarding the use of this family counseling authority in conjunction with readjustment counseling are that it has been of great importance in the agency's efforts to assist Vietnam-era veterans in need of readjustment assistance. Recently, however, I have become aware of situations in which veterans who were receiving readjustment counseling from the VA together with their family members have diedsome, tragically, by suicide-leaving family members in perhaps greater need of assistance at the very time that, because of the veteran's death, they lost their eligibility for such as sistance.

Moreover, receiving bereavement counseling from someon with whom the family member has already developed a supportive relationship will often be the most valuable way for that dependent to receive such counseling. We are proposing to amend current law so as to authorize the VA to continue, for up to 6 months following the veteran's death, to furnish appropriate mental health assistance to family members who were receiving it' before the death of the veteran. COUNSELING TO FAMILIES IN CONNECTION WITH HOSPICE AND OTHER CARE ARRANGEMENTS Mr. President, the change I have Just described would be made to section 601 (6) of title 38, which provides the general authority, under specified, limited circumstances, for counseling. mental health, and other services for a veteran's family members. Thus, the bill would authorize the continuation of services to the veteran's family in situations other than the readjustment counseling program in which family members are receiving services In connection with a veteran's care. One such area where this new eligibility could be of particular use would be. in cases in which the VA is providing health care to an eligible veteran suffering from a terminal disease, such as in 1 of the VA's 16 experimental haspice pragmaths. An appropriate, integral part of a program of hospice care is counseling for family members after the patient's death, and enactment of this provision would provide a clear statutory basis for the VA's furnishing care.

STUDY OF CIVILIANS WHO SERVED IN VIETNAM

Mr. President, in addition to the pro'visions that I have just outlined, which bear a relationship to veterans who served in the Vietnam conflict, a provizion in the measure we are introancing is related to those individuals atho served in Vietnam es civilians, Aither as Government employees or as

[ocr errors]

vided significant assistance to our Armed Forces. Major examples are the American Red Cross and the USO.

Under this provision, section 9 of the bill, the VA Administrator, in conjunction with the Secretaries of Defense and Health and Human Services, would be required, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this measure, to submit a report to the Congress advising on how the Federal Government might respond to the needs of those individuals for problems related to their work in Vietnam, such as for health problems that might be related to their exposure to dioxin from agent orange or to particularly stressful combat situations.

Mr. President, I am concerned that there may be significant numbers of individuals who made important comtributions to the US. effort in Viet nam but who, because of their nonmilitary or non-Pederal status during that period, may not now have access to adequate assistance-or socess to any assistance at all-from the Federal Government for problems that might be related to their work in Vietnam. I believe that, particularly in those cases in which the Federal Govern¡ment may be responsible for their condition, there is an obligation on the Government to provide appropriate redress. The report that would be mandated by this provision would be an Important step toward providing some guidance on how to resolve this matter.

CONTRACT PROGRAM FOR DRUG/ALCOHOL
TREATMENT

Mr. President, section 5 of the bil would amend section 820A of title 38, which provides authority pursuant to which the VA may contract with varlous community facilities to provide care and treatment to veterans suffering from alcohol or drug dependence or abuse disabilities, to change that authority from a pilot program to a permanent authority.

The pilot program authority-which 'I authored-was enacted in 1979 in Public Law 96-22 and is scheduled to expire on September 30, 1985. Pursuant to section 820A(T) of title 38, the Administrator is required to submit a report by March 31 of this yearon the eperations of the pilot program through September 30, 1963. I am looking forward to that report and expect that the results of that report will play an important role as the committee considers this legislation to make the pilot program authority permanent.

Although the VA's formal report on this program is not yet due and thereLore no systematic evaluation of the program is yet available all of the evidence that I have reviewed-including reactions from veterans who have been placed in halfway houses and other community-based facilities, VA employees who work with veterans with drug or alcohol abuse dependencles, and individuals associated with various community-based drug and acohol treatment programs indicates that the pilot program has been quite successful in enabling significant numbess of veterans to receive appropriate and helpful assistance.

PROTECTIVE SERVIORE BOULOTIES
Mr. President, ir nevent years, the

VA has experienced significant difficulties in attracting and retaining security personnel at numerous healthcare facilities around the country. This problem, which has been particu larly acute at some of the larger VA medical centers located in urban areas, has had a detrimental impact on the level of security at many VA facilities and has also affected the morale of the security personnel. Although many factors have been suggested as causes of this problem, the point raised most frequently involves the level of pay available for such personnel. The common complaint that is voiced is that many individuals will work as VA security personnel only long enough to gain sufficient experience to enable them to be hired else. where in police or security jobs for higher pay.

In an effort to address this problem section 6 of the bill we are introducing today would give the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs new authority to increase rates of pay-including minimum, intermediate, or maximum rates for protective services personnel and to do so on a nationwide, local, or other geographic basis as appropri ate. Having this authority, which would be subject to Presidential disapproval for 90 days before any such increased rate could go into effect, should provide the VA with an impor tant new tool with which to address these difficult recruitment and reten tion problems. Thus, for recruitment and retention purposes, this provision would treat security personnel the same as certain VA direct health-care personnel.

GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE HOME
PACELITIES

Mr. President, under title 38, the VA participates in two separate programs

of

assistance to State veterans' homes-one, a program of per diem payments to the homes for care provided to eligible veterans and, the other, a program of matching grants to the States for the construction, remodeling, or renovation of State veterans' homes.

The State home program is a vital adjunct to the VA's overall efforts, both now and in the coming years and decades, to meet the health-care needs of older veterans, and I strongly support the overall program. During the first session of this Congress, I was pleased to introduce legislation-S. 629 which was cosponsored by my col leagues on the committee, Senators RANDOLPH and SPECTER-that was ultimatety enacted with modifications in section 105 of Public Law 98-100. This, program provided for substantial increases in the State home per diem rates.

In this session, I am pleased to note that the VA, as part of the agency's Tiscal year 1985 budget submission, la requesting a significant increase over the fiscal year 1984 appropriations Jevel-from $18 million to $345 milHon-for the construction grant program. Although I have some questions about a few of the detalls of the agency's plans for spending those funds, I anticipate being able to support this request fully.

To improve the effectivenom of this

matching fund program, a provision in our bill would make a technical amendment to section 5035 of title 38. It is the VA's view that, under current law, the funding of otherwise qualify. ing grant applications must be provided on a first-come, first-served basis. A policy or practice of funding all qualifying applications in the order in which they were received does provide assurance that there will be no undue favoritism in choosing among such applications. However, unwaver ing adherence to that one principle makes it impossible to take into ac count substantive factors relating to the increased effectiveness of the pro

gram.

Although I am not convinced that, the law requires such grant applica tions to be funded in the order received, I am satisfied that the VA does not intend to change this practice without legislation expressly author. izing It to do so. Because the dollar value of qualified grant applications already submitted to the VA exceeds

the funds now available to it and requested for fiscal year 1985 and because the agency should be able to integrate its funding decisions in this program with other decisions regarding utilization of resources to meet the current and projected demand for nursing home and domiciliary care, I believe current law should be amended to give the VA flexibility in choosing among qualified grants. Thus, section 6 of the bill would amend section 5035 of title 38 to require the Administrator to issue regulations setting forth criteria by which grant applications would be rated and, then, in any year in which the value of approvable grants exceeds the funds appropriated for such purposes, to award such grants in accordance with the priority assigned. The priority would be required to take into account, among other things, the demand on the VA for nursing home and domiciliary care-the types of care which State homes are particularly well equipped to provide-in the geographic area concerned and the extent

to which it is feasible and desirable to meet that demand through various VA authorities.

CONCLUSION

Mr. President, as I noted at the outset, the diverse provisions of this bill have as a general unifying purpose bringing about the continued improvement of the Veterans' Administra tion's ability to meet the needs of our Nation's veterans and their dependents. I look forward to working on this measure with the committee chairman, my good friend from Wyoming (Mr. SIMPSON), the cosponsors of the bill, and other members of the committee, the VA, the veterans' service organizations, and others interested in legislation affecting veterans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 8. 2269 be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Congressional Record, Vol. 130, No. 37, pp. S3248-S3252--Senate, March 27, 1984]

[blocks in formation]

CRANSTON AND MATSUNAGA AMENDMENT NO. 2850 (Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.)

Mr. CRANSTON (for himself and Mr. MATSUNAGA) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to the bill S. 2269 to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve various aspects of Veterans' Administration

health-care programs and to provide eligibility to new categories of persons for readjustment counseling from the Veterans' Administration; and to require the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs and the Secretaries of Defense and of Health and Human Services to submit a report on alternatives for providing Federal benefits and services to individuals who, as civilians, pro vided services to US. Armed Forces in Vietnam during the Vietnam era; and for other purposes, as follows:

(1) On Page 5, strike out line 23 and inser In lieu thereof the following

Sec. 6. (a) Section 218 is amended to reag as follows:

I

"0 218. Security and law enforcement on propertş ⚫ under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Admin istration

"(x1) The Administrator, with the con currence of the Attorney General, shall pro scribe regulations to provide for the mainte nance of law and order and the protection of persons and property on land and in buildings under the jurisdiction of the Vet erans Administration and not under the control of the Administrator of General Services (hereinafter in this section referred 40 as Veterans' Administration property'). Such regulations shall prescribe, but need not be limited to

"(A) the penalties, within the limits speck Tied in paragraph (2) of this subsection, for violations of laws and regulations on Veteri ans' Administration property.

"(B) the authority, consistent with the provisions set forth in subsection (b) of this section, of Veterans' Administration protec tive services officers to enforce laws and reg. ulations and to make arrests,

"(C) the scope and duration of training that is required for Veterans' Administra tion protective services officers, with partic ular emphasis on dealing with situations in volving patients, and

"(D) rules limiting the carrying and use of weapons by Veterans' Administration pro tective services officers.

Laws and regulations (including penalties for violations thereof prescribed under this paragraph) shall be posted conspicuously on such property.

[ocr errors]

"(2) Whoever violates any regulations Dre scribed under paragraph (1) of this subsec tion shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months (or such lesser amount or period of time as the Administrator prescribes in such regula tions), or both.

"(b) The Administrator may designate employees of the Veterans' Administration pro Lective services officers. Such officers shall enforce Pederal laws, and the regulations prescribed under subsection (a) of this sec tion, on Veterans' Administration property. Any Veterans' Administration protective services officer may make an arrest, with or without a warrant, for any offense on Veter ans' Administration property if (1) such offense occurs in such officer's presence, or (2) such officer, has reasonable, sounds to

believe (A) that the offense constitutes, a violation of any law of the United States on of any regulation prescribed under subsecLion (a) of this section, and (B) that the perman to be arrested bas committed that offense.

(C) With the agreement of the head of the agency concerned, the Administrator may use the facilities and services of Feder al, State, and local law enforcement agencies when it is economical and in the public interest to do so.

"(dx1) Notwithstanding subchapter I of chapter 59 of title 5, the Administrator, pursuant to regulations which the Administrator shall prescribe, may pay allowances within the limits of paragraph (2) of this subsection, for the purchase of such uniforms, to any Veterans' Administration protective services officer who is required to wear a prescribed uniform in the perform ance of official duties.

"(2) Allowances that the Administrator may pay under paragraph (1) of this subsection for the purchase of uniforms shall not exceed

"(A) at the time the individual is first employed as a Veterans' Administration protec tive services officer, $400; and

"(B) at the beginning of the first fiscal year that begins after the individual has completed twelve months of service as a Veterans' Administration protective services officer and at the beginning of each subsequent fiscal year, $200.".

(b) The item relating to such section in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of such title is amended to read as follows:

"218. Security and law enforcement on property under the jurisdiction of the Vaterans' Administra tion".

(c) Section 4107(g) is amended(2) At the end of the bill, add the following new sections: 1

CONTRACT CARE IN PUERTO RICO, AND THE
VIRGIN ISLANDS

Sec. 10. Section 601(4XCXv) is amended by striking out "September. 30, 1984," and inserting in lieu thereof "September 30, (1985,".

-PAYMENT FOR THERAPEUTIC AND
REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES

SEC. 11. Section 618 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no amount of remuneration provided to an individual as a participant in a thera peutic or rehabilitative activity carried out pursuant to this section shall be included in determining annual income for purposes of pension payments.".

POST-TRAUMATIO-STRESS DISORDER TREATMENT SEC. 12. (a) In order to enhance the Veterans' Administration's capability to diagnose and treat post-traumatic stress disorder Khereinafter in this section referred to as "PTSD"), the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs shall establish a national center on PTSD (1) to carry out and promote research into, and the training of health-care personnel in, the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD, and (2) to serve as a resource center for and to promote and to seek to coordinate the exchange of information regarding all research and training activities carried out by the Veterans' Administration, and by other Federal and non-Federal entities, with respect to PTSD.

(b) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Adminis trator shall submit to the Committees on Veterans Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a report containing a description of the steps taken and plans made (and a timetable for their execution) to establish such a center. The report shah also contain (1) the assessment of the Chief Medical Director of the Volecane Adminle

tration regarding the capability of the Veterans' Administration to provide inpatient and outpatient PTSD diagnosis and treatment (both through PTSD inpatient treatment units and otherwise) as well as a de scription of the results of any evaluations that have been made of PTSD inpatient treatment units in existence on the date of the enactment of this Act, (2) any recommendations and a description of any activi ties planned for improving such diagnoses and treatment and for correcting any deflciencies in the operations of such units, and (3) the Administrator's amessment of the capacity of the Veterans' Administration to meet the need for PTSD diagnosis and treatment in all geographic areas of the United States and any plans and timetable for increasing that capacity (including the costs of such sation).

AMERMENT NO. 3880: VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I am today introducing, on behalf of myself and Senator MATSUNAGA, amendment No. 2850, an amendment to 8. 2269, the proposed Veterans' Administration Health Care Program Improvements Act of 1984. 8. 2269 is presently pending in the Veterans' Affairs Committee and is to be consid ered during a committee hearing scheduled for April 11. It is our expec tation, in introducing this amendment today, that the various provisions included in it will also be addressed at that hearing.

Mr. President, as I noted in my remarks in introducing 8. 2269-which begin on page 81084 of the daily edi tion of the RECORD for February 1. 1984-that legislation has as its basic underlying purpose the continued improvement of the VA's ability to meet the needs of our Nation's veterans and their dependents. The various provi sions in the amendment we are introducing today have the same purpose.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF B. 3269 Mr. President, as I noted when I introduced 8. 2269 on February 7, the eight substantive provisions of that bill would;

First, expand the definition of the Vietnam era for the purposes of title 38, United States Code, so as to include, in the case of veterans who served in Vietnam at that time, the period beginning on July 8, 1959. through August 5, 1964, the starting date of the Vietnam era in current law.

Second, in cases in which a voteran's family members have been receiving counseling or mental health services from the VA in connection with the veteran's care, authorise the VA to continue to provide services to those family members for a period of up to B months following the veteran's death.

Third, provide persons still on active duty in the Armed Forces who served during the Vietnam era with eligibility for VA readjustment counseling and authorize the Administrator of Veter ans' Affairs to provide much eligibility to persons who served in the Armed Forces after the Vietnam -ore in corabat-like situations.

Fourth, make permanent the W's current, pilot-program authority to

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »