Statement of Honorable Lane Evans
Conference Report on H.R. 2116
Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999

November 16, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Veterans Millennium Benefits Act of 1999. H.R. 2116, as agreed to by the conferees, makes significant improvements to the benefits and services provided to America’s veterans.

I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee, Bob Stump for his outstanding leadership. The conference agreement before the House today is due in large measure to Bob Stump’s commitment and determination to address the needs of our Nation’s veterans. I also want to thank the other House conferees from both sides of the aisle. Everyone worked well together to produce a conference agreement which every Member of the House can proudly support. It is a strong reaffirmation of our commitment to America’s veterans.

Extended Care Services

Defining a direction for VA long-term care is imperative. In my view, the solution must define a clear policy that would preserve and strengthen VA’s nursing home program and prompt VA’s expansion of the use of non-institutional alternatives to long-term care without forcing unreasonable new costs on VA. This struggle to define appropriate coverage for individuals who need long-term care is confronting our whole health care system right now.

I believe VA’s future, in large measure, depends on its ability to address the special needs of veterans. Inasmuch as it fails to address veterans’ long-term care needs, particularly for the highest priority veterans, I believe its future is jeopardized. One of the primary reasons I became an original cosponsor and architect of the Veterans’ Millennium Health Care Act was to address the evolution of VA’s nursing home programs. My staff has collected data from VA medical centers across the country that indicates VA’s role in long-term care is diminishing substantially. There is no longer any guarantee to life placement for many veterans as VA shifts its nursing homes to restorative, rehabilitative and palliative care. Veterans assuredly have a need for all of these types of care, but neither these subacute services, nor non-institutional care is always able to substitute for nursing home care needed for the most impaired veterans.

The good news is that this conference agreement will define a direction for VA in managing long-term care—an important, but expensive part of the health care continuum. The legislation initially approved by the House guaranteed extended care and non-institutional care to the system’s highest priority users. The goal of the other body was to create a guaranteed package of non-institutional long-term care for all VA enrollees. This agreement ensures institutional and non-institutional care for veterans with service-connected conditions for their service-connected condition and veterans with service-connected disabilities rated greater than 70%. It also establishes authority for VA to provide non-institutional care to all enrolled veterans.

In addition, VA will be required to maintain the level of in-house extended care services it offered in 1998, while expanding non-institutional care. The extended care provisions also authorize several pilot projects—one based on the successful and cost-effective Program for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) that offers an integrated and comprehensive array of medical and social services to help the frail elderly remain as independent as possible. Another pilot will examine the appropriate use of assisted living for veterans served by VA.

These benefits reassert the importance of long-term care in the continuum of care VA offers to veterans. It also provides a substantial benefit to veterans which VA can accommodate. While setting a new course for long-term care, we have done so in fiscally responsible manner that will not inflict an unfunded mandate on VA.

Emergency Services

The conference agreement authorizes VA to reimburse providers for emergency care provided to any enrolled veteran who has used VA care within the last two years. It uses a "prudent lay person" standard, as the recently approved Patient Bill of Rights did, to determine what constitutes a medical emergency. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for agreeing to support legislation offered by the Senate Minority Leader, a companion to the emergency care legislation I authored and introduced in the House. I am also pleased that, in achieving a productive compromise on the legislation I offered in this and the last session of Congress, this measure is now an even more fiscally responsible proposal that will allow VA to better manage this important new benefit to veterans.

Sexual Trauma Counseling Services

The Ranking Democratic Member of the Health Subcommittee, Congressman Luis Gutierrez, has worked diligently to ensure VA’s sexual trauma counseling services are preserved and strengthened. The conference agreement provides that VA must offer a sexual trauma program. This is an important change from current law that makes the program discretionary. While the conference agreement does not include a House provision to authorize reservists to receive program services, a study is required to determine the needs for these services within the reservist population. With a strengthened provision on outreach, this agreement insures sexual trauma counseling and treatment programs are a stronger part of VA’s core services.

Specialized Services

The Veterans Millennium Benefits Act incorporates two measures—one approved by each body. To strengthen VA’s paramount special emphasis programs, particularly for seriously chronically mentally ill veterans. The conference agreement on H.R. 2116 requires VA to report on bed closures that affect inpatient substance abuse treatment programs, post-traumatic stress disorder programs or other programs for the seriously chronically mentally ill. A report on bed closures is also required for rehabilitation beds. The report requirement is intended to encourage careful consideration by VA facility directors of the importance of continuing treatment (regardless of setting) for vulnerable veterans, not, as some have suggested, to deter bed closures entirely.

The other provision would establish a grant program to allow VA to provide at least $15 million to programs for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse programs. Restrained budgets have taken a serious toll on these programs that offer care to a very vulnerable population. These two initiatives are intended to restore these very important services that have been diminished due to fiscal constraints.

State Home Grants

The VA funds state home grants to construct nursing homes and domiciliaries. This is a beneficial relationship between VA and states that almost every state has embraced. As the State Homes increase, so too does veterans’ access to long-term care. This is recognized as a benefit by all.

For some time, however, grant requests from the states to construct new beds have overwhelmed the ability of the Congress to fund them. As a result, the backlog of grant requests for homes from states that long ago made the commitment to serve veterans through State Homes has grown tremendously. In addition, some State Homes have fallen into disrepair over the more than 35-year history of this VA program.

I view the agreement of the conferees as a "good Government" proposal. It will allow VA to take care of State Homes that have long cared for veterans and allow VA to give greater priority to states that still have a substantial need for State Home beds. Our veterans will be better served by State Homes because of the conference agreement.

Enhanced-Use Lease Authority

Recently, GAO claimed VA was "wasting a million dollars a day" on its overbuilt infrastructure. While I do not fully support this view, it does document the challenge VA has in managing its vast array of capital assets. One tool VA has found useful to maintain properties not now needed for patient care or other uses is enhanced-use leases. These leases allow VA to continue to hold the title to properties, without having the expense of maintaining them, while they are used for productive purposes by non-VA entities.

To make these leases more attractive to those who might consider their use, the conference agreement increases the number of years that developers have use of property from 35 to 75 years. This will allow those who want to make significant investments in property to capitalize on them throughout the useful life of most construction projects.

Chiropractic Treatment

I am pleased the conference agreement includes a provision requiring VA to establish a policy on chiropractic care for veterans. While this requirement does not specify the nature of the policy to be established by VA, VA is directed to consult chiropractors in developing this new policy. For too long, VA has lacked a formal policy on chiropractors and the care that they provide in VA. VA should review the medical literature and consider those studies that have shown chiropractic care for lower back pain is at least as effective as "traditional" medical treatment. While chiropractic care is not explicitly restricted in the VA, VA institutional barriers create restrictions for chiropractors who want to practice in VA.

It is clear that more Americans, as well as mainstream medicine, are embracing certain complementary and alternative therapies. Chiropractic care, which has established a licensure process in every state, is a choice many Americans, including veterans, want. I am glad VA will develop this policy and hopeful it will see the wisdom of offering veterans this choice.

of Former Prisoners of War

As an original co-sponsor of H.R. 784, to amend and liberalize the requirements for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for the surviving spouses of veterans who were Prisoners of War (POW), I strongly support section 501 of the conference agreement. Section 501 of the conference agreement which follows legislation approved by the other body will fully meet the objectives of H.R. 784 to liberalize the requirements for DIC eligibility. I am also pleased that the bill recognizes the tireless efforts of the late John William "Bill" Rolen, a former POW who devoted many years of his life to advocating for the needs of his fellow POWs and their families. Bill was a tireless advocate for our Nation's Ex-POW's and it is only fitting that the last piece of legislation he urged the Congress to adopt be named for him.

Section 502 of the conference agreement follows H.R. 708, a measure I authored. This provision restores eligibility for CHAMP-VA medical care, education benefits and home loan assistance to remarried surviving spouses who lost eligibility for these benefits upon remarriage and whose subsequent marriage has ended. During the 105^th Congress, legislation was enacted allowing for reinstatement of eligibility for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) cash benefits after termination of the remarriage. The present measure completes the restoration of eligibility for all VA benefits lost by a surviving spouse of a service-connected veteran upon remarriage if the subsequent marriage is ended.

As an original co-sponsor of H.R. 690, I am pleased that at long last bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma has been added to the list of radiogenic diseases which are presumed to be service-connected for our Nation's Atomic veterans. Unfortunately, other medical conditions which are clearly radiogenic such as lung cancer still require proof by a dose reconstruction procedure which the Institute of Medicine acknowledged is inadequate in its October 20, 1999 report. I am disappointed that many of our Atomic veterans continue to be denied compensation for their exposures while efforts are underway to compensate exposed civilians.

World War II Memorial

Both bodies approved legislation which would speed construction of the World War II Memorial, and the compromise measure includes the House language related to this issue.

Public Law 103-32 authorized the building of a national World War II Memorial. This legislation assigned responsibility for designing and constructing the memorial to the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC), an independent federal agency created in 1923. The ABMC administers, operates and maintains military cemeteries and memorials in 15 countries around the world. The Commission is also responsible for the establishment of other memorials in the U.S., when directed by Congress.

Under the compromise measure, the ABMC is given authority to borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury for a brief period. Under existing law, groundbreaking for the WWII Memorial may not occur until the ABMC, the Memorial's sponsor, has either received cash donations equal to the estimated cost of the Memorial or has sufficient borrowing authority to assure that the Memorial will be completed. ABMC projects that it will not receive sufficient cash donations until the year 2002 and that construction of the Memorial will take three years. The borrowing authority provided under title VI of the conference agreement will enable the ABMC to begin construction next year. ABMC projects that it will need no more than $11 million in borrowing authority and that borrowed funds will be repaid within three years. It is important that construction on this memorial begin as soon as possible because World War II veterans are dying at the rate of 31,000 per month.

Establishment of Additional National Cemeteries

Approval of legislation by both bodies to expand the national cemetery system clearly demonstrates Congressional concern regarding this issue. Section 211 of H.R. 2280 directed the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery in each of the four areas of the United States most in need of cemetery space to serve veterans and their families. S. 695 directed the Secretary to establish a national cemetery in five specific locations. The compromise measure generally follows the House-approved language and requires the Secretary to establish national cemeteries in the six areas of the United States most in need. The Secretary, when determining those six sites, shall take into consideration the under-served areas listed in Senate Report 106-113 -- Miami, Florida; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Detroit, Michigan; Sacramento, California; Atlanta, Georgia; and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. These are the six areas listed in the 1987 and 1994 VA reports to Congress regarding the national cemetery system that remain unserved.

VA statistics show that the demand for burial benefits will increase sharply in the near future, with interments increasing 42% from 1995 to 2010. Unless new national cemeteries are established soon, VA will not be able to meet the need for burial services for veterans in several metropolitan areas of the country, and too many veterans will lack access to the final -- and for many, the only -- veterans benefit they will receive from our grateful nation.

When the House Committee on Veterans Affairs finally agreed last year to enact legislation requested by the VA to enhance the State Cemetery Grants Program, it was only after the Department assured the Committee that the new State program would continue to supplement the national cemetery system -- not replace it. However, the Administration’s FY 2000 budget for VA failed to include a request for the funding required to initiate any of the needed new national cemeteries. I strongly urge the Administration to include the funding necessary to establish the six new cemeteries required under this provision in its FY 2001 budget.

Use of Flat Grave Markers at Santa Fe National Cemetery, New Mexico

The compromise agreement includes a provision, derived from S. 695, which authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for flat grave markers at the Santa Fe National Cemetery, New Mexico. Although I supported accepting this Senate provision, I want to make it clear that I continue to strongly believe that upright grave markers should be the standard for the national cemetery system. It is only under very unusual circumstances that flat markers should be approved, and I would not support any effort to eliminate the requirement under current law that requires upright grave markers.

Study on Improvements to National Cemeteries

The conference agreement includes a provision, based on section 212 of H.R. 2280, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to contract for a study of national cemeteries. The study is to include an assessment of –

1. one-time repairs required at each national cemetery,

2. the feasibility of making appearance of national cemeteries as attractive as the finest cemeteries in the world,

3. the number of additional cemeteries that will be required for the interment of veterans who die after 2010, and

The report must also identify, by five-year period beginning with 2010 and ending with 2030 –

1. the number of additional national cemeteries required during each five-year period, and

2. the areas in the U.S. with the greatest concentration of veterans whose burial needs are not served by national cemeteries or State veterans’ cemeteries.

Additionally, the report will include information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of using of flat grave markers and upright grave markers in national cemeteries as well as a report on the current conditions of flat marker sections at all national cemeteries. I want to repeat, however, my earlier-stated commitment to requiring, with only occasional exceptions, the use of upright markers in national cemeteries.

Section 212 (b)(1)(D) of H.R. 2280 required that an independent study on improvements to veterans' cemeteries required under section 212 include a study of improvements to burial benefits under chapter 23 of title 38, United States Code. This study was to include a proposal to increase the amount of the benefit for plot allowances under section 2303(b) of title 38, to better serve veterans and their families. I am very pleased that the compromise agreement includes a provision based on this section.

Under the compromise agreement, Subtitle C of Title VI requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to contract for an independent study on improvements to veterans' burial benefits. The matters to be studied under this section include:

1. an assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of the burial benefits provided under chapter 23 of title 38, United States Code, in meeting the burial needs of veterans and their families.

2. Options to better serve the burial needs of veterans and their families, including modifications to burial benefit amounts and eligibility, including the estimated cost for each modification.

3. Expansion of the authority of the Secretary to provide burial benefits for burials in private-sector cemeteries and to make grants to private-sector cemeteries.

This provision further requires the contractor to submit the report to the Secretary no later than 120 days after the contract is completed. No later than 60 days following receipt of the report, the Secretary is required to transmit the report, together with any comments regarding the report the Secretary considers appropriate, to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs.

For many veterans, the only benefits they receive related to their military service are those provided at their death. I believe it to be a matter of national honor that the level of burial benefits provided adequately meet the needs of veterans and their families. This report will help us ascertain what changes and improvements need to be made in order to achieve this goal.

S. 1402 included a provision which would enable veterans to use their benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (chapter 30, title 38, United States Code) to pay for the costs of (a) preparatory courses for tests that are required or utilized for admission to an institution of higher education, such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and (b) a preparatory course for a test that is required or utilized for admission to a graduate school, such as the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). Many colleges and graduate schools rely heavily on the results of these tests when assessing individuals seeking admission to their schools, and veterans should have the opportunity to take the preparatory courses designed to increase test scores. Accordingly, I am very pleased that this provision is included in the conference agreement.

Montgomery GI Bill Enhancements Approved by the Senate

S. 1402, the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Programs Improvements Act of 1999, would increase benefits and expand educational opportunities under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and also increase rates of survivors and dependents educational assistance. Unfortunately, the Senate did not also provide the off-sets required under the Budget Act to pay for their GI Bill amendments. Although I welcome the Senate's interest in veterans' education programs, without offsetting savings the House would not take up for consideration a conference agreement that included the Senate-approved MGIB amendments.

Because GI Bill enhancements are long overdue, I introduced H.R. 1071, the Montgomery GI Bill Improvements Act of 1999, earlier this year. I strongly agree with the assertion in the recent report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance that "…an opportunity to obtain the best education for which they qualify is the most valuable benefit our Nation can offer the men and women whose military service preserves our liberty."

I believe that if the Montgomery GI Bill is to fulfill its purposes as a meaningful readjustment benefit and as an effective recruitment incentive for our Armed Forces, it must be significantly improved. Accordingly, H.R. 1071 would establish a two-tiered program.

Tier I would enhance the GI Bill in the following ways for those who enlist or reenlist for a minimum of four years --

* Pay the full costs of tuition, fees, books, and supplies.

* Provide a subsistence allowance of $800/month (indexed for inflation) for 36 months.

* Eliminate the $1,200 basic pay reduction required under current law.

* Permit payment for approved specialized courses offered by entities other than educational institutions.

Tier II would enhance the GI Bill in the following ways for those who enlist for fewer than 4 years --

* Increase the current basic benefit from $536/month to $900/month.

* Eliminate the $1,200 basic pay reduction.

* Permit trainees to receive accelerated lump-sum benefits.

* Permit payment for approved specialized courses offered by entities other than educational institutions.

It is my hope that next year Congress will adopt a budget resolution that will enable us to enact H.R. 1071 and significantly improve the Montgomery GI Bill.

I am very pleased that included in the compromise measure is a provision derived from S. 1402 that would allow servicemembers to retain their eligibility under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) if they are discharged during their initial enlistment period to receive a commission as an officer.

The Committee recently learned that an enlisted servicemember who completes Officer Training School (OTS) or Officer Candidate School (OCS) is discharged upon completion of this school in order to accept an immediate commission as an officer. If the discharge occurs before the servicemember completes his or her minimum period of active duty required to establish MGIB eligibility, the servicemember becomes ineligible for education benefits. The Subcommittee on Benefits held hearings on October 28, 1999 on a draft bill to allow the two periods of active duty to be considered as one, thereby permitting these individuals to maintain their MGIB eligibility. Similar language is included in the compromise agreement.

It was not the intent of Congress that certain young men and women selected to attend OTS or OCS be forced to make a choice between being commissioned and maintaining their GI Bill eligibility. This provision will correct this unintentional inequity in law.

Report on Veterans' Education and Vocational Training by the States

The compromise agreement includes a provision, derived from S. 1402, that would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs listing veterans' education and vocational training benefits provided by the States. This report would include benefits provided, by reason of service in the Armed Forces, to active duty servicemembers, veterans, and members of the Selected Reserve. I believe the information included in this document will be very helpful to veterans, and I urge the VA to update this initial report annually.

Prior to 1992, only individuals who served on active duty qualified for VA housing loan benefits. Public Law 102-547, however, included a pilot program which granted loan eligibility, through October 1999, to persons who had at least six years of honorable service in the Selected Reserve. Under a provision of P.L. 105-368, eligibility was extended through September 30, 2003.

Earlier this year, it was pointed out to me by the executive director of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS) that, although they greatly appreciated the extension enacted last year, the limitation on the availability of the program hampered their efforts to use this benefit as an incentive to recruit individuals who would agree to six-year enlistments. In response to this very legitimate concern, I introduced H.R. 1603, which would have made this eligibility permanent. The provisions of H.R. 1603 were included in H.R. 2280 and were approved by the House.

Although the other body was unwilling to agree to providing permanent eligibility for VA housing loans for certain Selected Reservists, I am pleased the conference agreement extends this eligibility through September 30, 2007.

Quality Assurance

The Quality Assurance provisions of section 801 of the bill are designed to assure that the Veterans Benefits Administration’s (VBA) internal quality assurance activities meet the recognized appropriate governmental standards for independence. This will require the establishment within VBA of a quality assurance program which comports with generally accepted government standards for performance audits.

For years our Nation’s veterans who filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for benefits associated with their military service, particularly service-connected disability compensation, have been forced to contend with a VA claims adjudication process which has been both too slow and too inaccurate. Recent information suggests that after waiting years for a decision, one out of three veterans may find that the rating decision made by VA was wrong. Untimely and inaccurate decision-making by the VA, and particularly the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), have been twin problems which have plagued veterans, veterans service organizations and Members of Congress who assist their veteran constituents.

While experience clearly indicated otherwise, between 1993 and 1997, VBA reported that the quality of its work was nearly error free as measured by VBA. Quality standards had been relaxed to the point that VA was reporting an accuracy rate of 97%. To his credit, the Under Secretary of Veterans Benefits, Mr. Joe Thompson instituted, on a trial basis, a new system for measuring the quality of the claims adjudication work performed by VBA. This new quality measure, the Strategic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) was tested and used operationally in 1998.

STAR use has been focused on claims submitted by veterans which require the VA to rate the claim, make a determination as to whether a medical disability is service-connected or non-service-connected and determine the degree of disability manifest. Using the STAR methodology, the accuracy of various actions taken during the adjudication process are used to determine if the case was correctly or incorrectly decided. A case is either all right or all wrong. Using STAR, the accuracy rate was 64% -- fewer than two out of three claims were correctly decided.

While STAR provided a more realistic assessment of the quality of VA claims adjudication, STAR does not currently meet generally accepted governmental standards for independence and separation of duties. Reviews of regional office decisions are made by persons who are also decision makers reporting to managers whose evaluations are enhanced if quality results are shown. There is not sufficient staff whose primary focus is improving the quality of claims adjudication at the regional office level. In order to pinpoint errors, it is important to be able to identify regional offices which have specific high or low accuracy rates and to ascertain the reasons for discrepancies between regional offices.

One measure of quality, the percentage of decisions appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals (the Board) which are either reversed or remanded back to the regional offices for further work, is particularly disturbing. During fiscal year 1998, 17.2% of the appealed decisions were reversed outright by the Board. An additional 41.2% of the appeals were remanded for further action by the regional offices. Another measure of accuracy is the integrity of data relied upon by the VBA. During 1998, the VA Inspector General issued a report finding that data entered into the VBA computer system was being manipulated to make it appear that claims were processed more efficiently than was actually occurring.

Problems are not confined to the Compensation and Pension Service. In reviewing VA’s compliance with statutory financial requirements, the General Accounting Office (GAO) noted that VA’s home loan program was unable to perform routine accounting functions and had lost control over a number of loans which were transferred to an outside loan company for continued loan servicing. VA was not able to obtain an unqualified audit opinion as a result of these deficiencies. On February 24, 1999, VA’s Inspector General reported that the $400 million vocational rehabilitation program was placed at high risk after the Quality Assurance Program for that service was discontinued in 1995.

Because of the fundamental importance of accurate and effective claims processing and adjudication by VA regional offices, and the need for effective oversight of Regional Office claims processing and adjudication by the VBA, I requested GAO to review VBA's quality assurance policies and practices. On March 1, 1999, GAO issued a report which determined that further improvement was needed in claims-processing accuracy. In particular, GAO determined that VBA’s quality assurance activities did not meet the standards for independence and internal control. These standards are contained in the Comptroller General of the United States, United States General Accounting Office publication Government Auditing Standards (1994 Revision).

Section 801 of the bill is designed to give VBA sufficient flexibility to design the program in a manner so as to achieve its objective of improving the quality of claims adjudication. I have been informally advised by the General Accounting Office that under VBA's present structure, placement of the functions within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Under Secretary for Management would provide sufficient independence to meet the relevant standards.

In fiscal year 2000, the VA will pay over $22 billion dollars in monetary benefits to veterans. I expect that the careful development and implementation of a program of quality assurance, which meets generally accepted governmental auditing standards for program performance audits, will provide impartial and independent oversight of the quality of claims adjudication decisions and will improve the confidence of veterans in a system which is designed to recognize the sacrifices our Nation's veterans have made.

With the establishment of independent oversight of the quality of claims adjudication decisions, the number of claims which are remanded because of the poor quality of claims adjudication will be reduced. With better initial decisions and fewer remands for re-adjudication, veterans will receive a quicker and a more accurate response.

The conference agreement changes the way decisions concerning claims for compensation and pension, education, vocational rehabilitation and counseling, home loan and insurance benefits will be reviewed and evaluated. Employees who are independent of decision makers will be devoted to identifying problems in the decision-making process. By identifying the kinds of errors made by VA personnel, VBA managers will be able to take appropriate action. I expect that remand rates will be significantly reduced and veterans will find that VA makes the right decision the first time the claim is presented.

We can not expect any real improvement in the timeliness of claims adjudication unless the barriers to quality decision making are identified and addressed in a systemic fashion. Our nation’s veterans deserve to have their claims for VA benefits decided right the first time. By enacting this provision, Congress has put the VA claims adjudication process on the right track. Our veterans deserve no less.

Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans

The Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans has offered concrete recommendations for the last five years to the Secretary on the special challenges of minority veterans who seek care and benefits from VA. Unlike many other Federal Advisory Committees, the authority for the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans is temporary. H.R. 2116 as agreed to by the conferees extends the authority for this Committee through 2003. I will continue to work to ensure that the authority for the Committee is offered parity with other Federal Advisory Committees and extended indefinitely.

Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Programs

I am very pleased that the conference agreement reauthorizes the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Programs (HVRP). Under the compromise agreement, this program would be extended for four years through fiscal year 2003. The authorized funding levels for the program would be $10 million in FY 2000, $15 million in FY 2001, $20 million in FY 2002, and $20 million in FY 2003. Although section 302 of H.R. 2280 would have extended this program for five years at authorized funding levels of $10 million for FY 2000, $15 million for FY 2001, $20 million for FY 2002, $25 million for FY 2003, and $30 million for FY 2004, the compromise is a good one. It will enable the community-based organizations across the country that are funded by this program to continue their very effective work helping homeless veterans reenter the workforce.