Search

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of copyright law as it relates to computer software. The computer industry terminology, case law, and software protection by patents and trade secret legislation are examined, and it is argued that the protection of ownership rights of computer software poses major challenges to existing U.S. copyright law--and to proposals to amend existing laws--due to the rapid development of sophisticated computer technology. Software case law is characterized as an evolving area that must be concerned with subtle distinctions and characterizations of elements of computer software. Two possible courses of legislative action are discussed. The first would allow the current state of copyright law to continue without significant amendment, thereby allowing the general body of copyright law to govern software issues. It is noted that with this approach, courts would use existing law to craft appropriate methods to resolve copyright disputes, and would determine the boundaries of software copyright protection. The second course of legislative action would be to develop a new body of law specifically designed to address software issues such as ownership and protection of intellectual property. It is argued that such an approach might create comprehensive legislation to deal with software copyright issues; however, this approach has not yet received support from either the Congress or industry. References are provided throughout the document. (DB)

American copyright law provides a means of stimulating intellectual development and protecting the ownership interests of the authors of copyrighted works. Over the years, U.S. copyright law has evolved in order to respond to societal and technological changes. Under the copyright statute certain uses of a copyrighted work are permitted under the doctrine of fair use. The criteria for the application of this doctrine are flexible and are applied on a case by case basis. New technologies such as compact disks, optical disks, computer storage devices, and digital audio technology (DAT) recording, provide challenges for U.S. copyright law. For example, DAT is capable of producing copies of copyrighted works in the privacy of the DAT owner's home. Thus, the question is whether DAT use is considered fair use or as copyright infringement. Although DAT equipment is not generally available to the public, its use and copyright law have been addressed in the 101st Congress as they relate to home recording. The most significant of the issues posed in the application of existing copyright law to DAT recording is that such recording may not fall within the fair use exception of the law, and, therefore, issues of infringement may arise with the sale and use of DAT. References are provided throughout the report. (DB)

The article focuses on the eligibility criteria used by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The agency relies substantially upon military department service records to determine whether the applicant is a veteran for the purposes of VA benefits. The different types of discharges issued by the military services include honorable discharge and bad conduct discharge. In order to be considered a veteran for VAn benefits, an applicant must have active military, naval or air service.

The article focuses on the eligibility criteria and the fundamentals of the disability benefit programs of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The benefits offered by the VA to veterans include health care and related services, education and life insurance. It details the process used by the VA to evaluate disability claims as well as to determine eligibility for other VA benefits. Honorable discharge and band conduct discharge are some of the types of discharges issued by the military services.

The article deals with personal hearings held concerning a veteran's claims appeal in the U.S. The two types of personal hearings are a local Veterans Affairs (VA) office hearing and a hearing held by the Board of Veterans Affairs (BVA). A request for a BVA hearing may be done by indicating on VA Form 9 the type of hearing that the appellant prefers. Other topics discussed include filing a motion for reconsideration of the appeal, the dismissal of the appeal upon the death of the appellant and other courts with jurisdiction on such appeals.

The article offers a discussion of the process of filing for an appeal concerning veterans' claims in the U.S. The statutory obligations of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to assist veterans in preparing their benefit application and any subsequent appeal are detailed. A veteran must first file an appeal to a local VA office. Further appeals should be filed with the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA), then to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and finally to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A discussion of duties and obligations of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to veterans who file appeals concerning their benefits claims is presented.

The article discusses the steps involved in the process of filing an appeal concerning veterans' claims in the U.S. If a veteran is not satisfied with the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) over his or her benefits claim, he or she may submit a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) to the local VA office. The local VA office should in turn send a Statement of Case (SOC) to the veteran. The appeal may then proceed to the Board of Veterans Affairs (BVA). The Supreme Court has the final jurisdiction over such appeals.

Since the 1970s, Vietnam-era veterans have attributed certain medical illnesses, disabilities, and birth defects to exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides sprayed by the U.S. Air Force to destroy enemy crops and remove forest cover. During the last 30 years, Agent Orange legislation has established and updated the health and disability benefits of Vietnam veterans exposed to herbicides. Several laws were enacted by Congress to provide health care services to Vietnam veterans. The Veterans' Health Care, Training and Small Business Loan Act (P.L. 97-72) elevated Vietnam veterans' priority status for health care at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities by recognizing a veteran's own report of exposure as sufficient proof to receive medical care unless there was evidence to the contrary. The veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-262) completely restructured the VA medical care eligibility requirements for all veterans. Under P.L. 104-262, a veteran does not have to demonstrate a link between a certain health condition and exposure to Agent Orange; instead, medical care is provided unless the VA has determined that the condition did not result from exposure to Agent Orange. Likewise, Congress passed several measures to address disability compensation issues of Vietnam veterans. The Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-542) required the VA to develop regulations for disability compensation to Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange. In 1991, the Agent Orange Act (P.L. 102-4) established for the first time a process for establishing presumption of service connection for diseases associated with herbicide exposure. P.L. 102-4 authorized the VA to contract with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct scientific reviews of the evidence linking certain medical conditions to herbicide exposure. Under this law, the VA is required to review the reports of the IOM and issue regulations, establishing a presumption of service connection for any disease for which there is scientific evidence of a positive association with herbicide exposure. Based on these IOM reports, currently 14 health conditions are presumptively service-connected, including B-cell leukemias, Parkinson's disease, and ischemic heart disease. Navy veterans of the Vietnam Era (those who served in Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975), who served offshore and were never physically present on Vietnamese soil, have been contesting the presumption of service connection for Agent Orange disability benefits. In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) ruled in Haas v. Nicholson that navy veterans who served offshore during the Vietnam Era were entitled to a presumption of exposure to Agent Orange. On May 8, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("the court") issued a decision reversing the CAVC's decision. On June 23, 2008, the attorneys for Haas filed a petition with the court for a panel rehearing or a rehearing en banc (that is, the whole panel of judges of the court). On October 9, 2008, the court denied the petition. Following this action, Haas petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari (asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court). On January 21, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari. A subsequent related proceeding, Haas v. Shinseki, on remand from the court, involved the same plaintiff and the same factual situation. On March 10, 2009, the court examined the BVA's decision, vacated that decision, and remanded the claim for further proceedings with the BVA. The Agent Orange Equity Act of 2009 (H.R. 2254), if enacted, would clarify service in Vietnam to include inland waterways, the waters offshore, and airspace above Vietnam. Under H.R. 2254, those who have been awarded the Vietnam Service Medal or the Vietnam Campaign Medal would also be eligible for disability compensation based on presumptive disease conditions relating to exposure to Agent Orange. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides a broad range of benefits and services to American veterans and to certain members of their families. In addition, the Department of Defense (DOD) offers a variety of benefits to veterans who are also military retirees. When members of the National Guard or the Reserve who have not yet reached age 60 retire (usually after at least 20 years of service), however, they are not entitled to certain federal benefits, including health care. These military retirees are commonly known as “Gray Area Retirees” (GARs). These persons may not necessarily meet the relevant statutory definition of “veterans” for VA benefit purposes, nor are they eligible for DOD health benefits until they are eligible for military retired pay at age 60. In order to be eligible for most VA benefits, the claimant must be a veteran, or in some cases, the survivor or dependent of a veteran. However, not every person who has served in the military is considered to be a “veteran” for the purposes of VA benefits. The concept of “veteran” is defined by federal statute and includes various criteria, such as discharge status, “active” service, time of service, and length of duty. Based upon their military service and the eligibility criteria, it may be difficult for members of the National Guard and members of the various Reserve Components to qualify as “veterans” for purposes of VA benefits. Therefore, not every member of the Guard or the Reserve will be considered a “veteran” for the purposes of VA benefits. Congressional interest has focused on this group of military retirees, and several bills were introduced in the first session of the 111th Congress which would provide certain benefits to this particular group of military retirees. Section 705 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84) provides TRICARE Standard coverage (for purchase) for certain members of the Retired Reserve who are qualified for a non-regular retirement, but are not yet age 60 (GARs). Implementation of this program is in progress, and it is expected to be operational in the fall of 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A broad range of benefits is offered to American veterans and to certain members of their families by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Among these benefits are various types of financial benefits and assistance, including two disability programs: disability compensation and pensions which pay monthly cash benefits to disabled veterans. Disability compensation provides a monthly benefit to veterans who are disabled as a direct result of their military service. Disability pension is paid to wartime veterans who have limited income, are no longer able to work, or are aged 65 or older. Additional basic criteria must be met in order to be eligible to receive either of these benefits. This report examines the eligibility criteria and the fundamentals of the VA-administered disability benefit programs and related issues. It supplements and condenses the relevant materials that are available from the VA and its website. It also provides specific citations for further information and more in-depth analysis of information contained herein. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1970s, Vietnam-era veterans have attributed certain medical illnesses, disabilities, and birth defects to exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides sprayed by the U.S. Air Force to destroy enemy crops and remove forest cover. During the last 30 years, Agent Orange legislation has established and updated the health and disability benefits of Vietnam veterans exposed to herbicides. Several laws were enacted by Congress to provide health care services to Vietnam veterans. The Veterans’ Health Care, Training and Small Business Loan Act (P.L. 97-72) elevated Vietnam veterans’ priority status for health care at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities by recognizing a veteran’s own report of exposure as sufficient proof to receive medical care unless there was evidence to the contrary. The Veterans’ Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-262) completely restructured the VA medical care eligibility requirements for all veterans. Under P.L. 104-262, a veteran does not have to demonstrate a link between a certain health condition and exposure to Agent Orange; instead, medical care is provided unless the VA has determined that the condition did not result from exposure to Agent Orange. Likewise, Congress passed several measures to address disability compensation issues of Vietnam veterans. The Veterans’ Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-542) required the VA to develop regulations for disability compensation to Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange. In 1991, the Agent Orange Act (P.L. 102-4) established for the first time a presumption of service-connection for diseases associated with herbicide exposure. P.L. 102-4 authorized the VA to contract with the IOM to conduct a scientific review of the evidence linking certain medical conditions to herbicide exposure. Under this law, the VA is required to review the reports of the IOM and issue regulations, establishing a presumption of service-connection for any disease for which there is scientific evidence of a positive association with herbicide exposure. Navy veterans of the Vietnam Era (those who served in Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975), who served offshore and were never physically present on Vietnamese soil, have been contesting the presumption of service-connection for Agent Orange disability benefits. In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) ruled in Haas v. Nicholson that navy veterans who served offshore during the Vietnam Era were entitled to a presumption of exposure to Agent Orange. On May 8, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the court”) issued a decision reversing the CAVC’s decision. On June 23, 2008, the attorneys for Haas filed a petition with the court for a panel rehearing or a rehearing en banc (that is, the whole panel of judges of the court). On October 9, 2008, the court denied the petition. Following this action, Haas petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari (asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court). On January 21, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari. A subsequent related proceeding, Haas v. Shinseki, on remand from the court, involved the same plaintiff and the same factual situation. On March 10, 2009, the court examined the BVA’s decision, vacated that decision, and remanded the claim for further proceedings with the BVA. The Agent Orange Equity Act of 2009 (H.R. 2254), if enacted, would clarify service in Vietnam to include inland waterways, the waters offshore, and airspace above Vietnam. Under H.R. 2254, those who have been awarded the Vietnam Service Medal or the Vietnam Campaign Medal would also be eligible for disability compensation based on presumptive disease conditions relating to exposure to Agent Orange. This report will be updated as events warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Seamen of the U.S. merchant marine contributed to the World War II effort through the transportation of goods, materials, and personnel to the various theaters of war. However, they were civilians and not members of the U.S. Armed Forces. As a result, at the end of the war they did not receive the benefits granted to members of the U.S. Armed Forces. In the years after the war, Congress held hearings on legislation introduced that would have either expanded benefits then currently available to merchant seamen, or provided benefits comparable to those provided in the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (The GI Bill or GI Bill of Rights, P.L. 78-346). None of the legislation introduced was passed by Congress. The GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-202) recognized the service of one group of civilians, the Women's Air Forces Service Pilots, as active service for benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In addition, P.L. 95-202 provided that the Secretary of Defense could determine that service for the Armed Forces by a group of civilians, or contractors, be considered active service for benefits administered by the VA. Following litigation, the Secretary of the Air Force determined on January 19, 1988, that the service of the American Merchant Marine in Oceangoing Service during the period December 7, 1941, to August 15, 1945, is considered "active duty" for the purposes of all laws administered by the VA if the merchant seamen met certain criteria. Since then, certain merchant seamen have been eligible for the same benefits administered by the VA as veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces. However, some merchant seamen are advocating for a monthly payment because benefits were not provided until years after World War II. This report will provide a brief overview of seamen of the U.S. merchant marine (merchant seamen or merchant mariners) and World War II, post-war efforts for benefits for merchant seamen, the efforts by merchant seamen. . . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congressional interest in benefits for veterans has increased with the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This report provides a general discussion of veterans' benefits issues that are part of the legislative agenda of the 110th Congress or are likely to be of legislative interest. Among those issues are disability compensation and pensions; education benefits; homelessness; life insurance; the status or eligibility of groups such as U.S. merchant seamen and World War II Filipino veterans for veterans' benefits; Reserve and National Guard eligibility for veterans' benefits; the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and legal representation for veterans. For each issue, an overview is provided, along with summaries of pertinent pending legislation. In addition, an overview of the benefits and their eligibility requirements, demographics for both the veteran population and the benefit population, and summary data on the FY2008 budget for veterans' benefits are provided. Issues that are not addressed by this report are veterans' medical care and appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This report will be updated upon relevant legislative activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A broad range of benefits is offered to American veterans and to certain members of their families by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Among these benefits are various types of financial benefits and assistance — which include disability compensation and pensions. The VA administers two disability programs. These programs pay monthly cash benefits to disabled veterans. Disability compensation provides a monthly benefit if the veteran is disabled as a result of his/her military service. Disability compensation relates specifically to a disability which directly resulted from military service. A disability pension is paid to a wartime veteran if the veteran has limited income, is no longer able to work, or is age 65 or older. The pension is not related to a service-connected injury or medical condition. Award of the pension takes into consideration the material needs of the veteran (i.e., it is a “needs-based” pension). There is no deadline or time limit for applying for disability benefits. A veteran cannot simultaneously receive both disability compensation and a disability pension. There are certain basic criteria which must be met in order to be eligible to receive either of these benefits. This report examines the eligibility criteria and the fundamentals of the VA administered disability benefit programs and related issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congress, through the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), provides a variety of benefits and services to veterans and to certain members of their families. These benefits range from health care and related services to burial benefits. The veteran's basic eligibility for these programs and services is usually determined by the local VA office. Veterans not satisfied with the VA's decision(s) may wish to have them reviewed and may appeal the decision(s). This report traces the various steps involved in the appeal process -- starting with the original application for benefits and concluding with an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. A flow chart outlining all of the steps in the appeal process is provided. Following the filing of the initial appeal, the local VA office will either allow or disallow the claim. If the veteran/claimant wishes to appeal, a written request for appeal must be filed and various time deadlines and other requirements must be met prior to the case being considered by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA). The appeal before the BVA may be a hearing at the local VA office by a traveling Board member; a hearing at the BVA office in Washington, DC; or a videoconference hearing at the local VA office. Various filing requirements and time limits must be met by the veteran/claimant in his/her appeal. There are specific guidelines for a person representing a veteran before the BVA. Legislation enacted in the 109th Congress changed traditional guidelines to allow for legal representation for veterans throughout the administrative appeals process. The veteran/claimant may appeal the decision of the BVA to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), which is an independent federal court and not part of the VA. The decision of the CAVC may be appealed by either the veteran/claimant or the VA to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), an Article III court that sits in Washington, DC and has exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases challenging CAVC rulings. Decisions of the Federal Circuit may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has final jurisdiction. The VA has various statutory obligations to assist the veteran in the preparation of his/her application for benefits and any subsequent appeal(s). Among these obligations are assistance in the preparation of the initial application; provision of various records; medical exams; and other related issues. Certain legal and factual presumptions are established by statute that may be favorable to the veteran's claim. These issues are examined in the appendix to this report. Legislation introduced in the 110th Congress concerning the appeal process is summarized in the appendix. These bills are H.R. 67, H.R. 653, H.R. 797, H.R. 1435, H.R. 1444, H.R. 1490, H.R. 1538, H.R. 2257, H.R. 2855, H.R. 3047, H.R. 5089, S. 1283, S. 1363, and S. 2737. H.R. 1318 is also discussed. One of the bills, H.R. 797, has been enacted into law (P.L. 110-157). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Seamen of the U.S. merchant marine contributed to the World War II effort through the transportation of goods, materials, and personnel to the various theaters of war. However, they were civilians and not members of the U.S. Armed Forces. As a result, at the end of the war they did not receive the benefits granted to members of the U.S. Armed Forces. In the years after the war, Congress held hearings on legislation introduced that would have either expanded benefits then currently available to merchant seamen, or provided benefits comparable to those provided in the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (The GI Bill or GI Bill of Rights, P.L. 78-346). None of the legislation introduced was passed by Congress. The GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-202) recognized the service of one group of civilians, the Women's Air Forces Service Pilots, as active service for benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In addition, P.L. 95-202 provided that the Secretary of Defense could determine that service for the Armed Forces by a group of civilians, or contractors, be considered active service for benefits administered by the VA. Following litigation, the Secretary of the Air Force determined on January 19, 1988, that the service of the American Merchant Marine in Oceangoing Service during the period December 7, 1941, to August 15, 1945, is considered "active duty" for the purposes of all laws administered by the VA if the merchant seamen met certain criteria. Since then, certain merchant seamen have been eligible for the same benefits administered by the VA as veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces. However, some merchant seamen are advocating for a monthly payment because benefits were not provided until years after World War II. This report will provide a brief overview of seamen of the U.S. merchant marine (merchant seamen or merchant mariners) and World War II, post-war efforts for benefits for merchant seamen, the efforts by merchant seamen for recognition under P.L. 95-202, and legislation introduced in the 110th Congress. The report will be updated as needed for additional information and legislative changes.< [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A broad range of benefits is offered to American veterans and to certain members of their families by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Among these benefits are various types of financial benefits and assistance -- which include disability compensation and pensions. The VA administers two disability programs. These programs pay monthly cash benefits to disabled veterans. Disability compensation provides a monthly benefit if the veteran is disabled as a result of his/her military service. Disability compensation relates specifically to a disability which directly resulted from military service. A disability pension is paid to a wartime veteran if the veteran has limited income, is no longer able to work, or is age 65 or older. The pension is not related to a service-connected injury or medical condition. Award of the pension takes into consideration the material needs of the veteran -- i.e., it is a "needs-based" pension. There is no deadline or time limit for applying for disability benefits. A veteran cannot simultaneously receive both disability compensation and a disability pension. There are certain basic criteria which must be met in order to be eligible to receive either of these benefits. This report examines the eligibility criteria and the fundamentals of the VA-administered disability benefit programs and related issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was enacted to serve as a means for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items (including human remains) to the lineal descendants, culturally affiliated Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations. NAGPRA makes provision for both intentionally excavated and inadvertently discovered Native American cultural items on federal and tribal lands. Penalties are provided for noncompliance. A Review Committee was established by NAGPRA to monitor the various processes and to assist in dispute resolution involving repatriation issues. Certain provisions of NAGPRA were judicially scrutinized in a series of cases concerning the disposition of the remains of an ancient man, believed to be about 9,000 years old and known as the Kennewick Man or the Ancient One, which was discovered on federal land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("COE"). The COE considered the applicability of NAGPRA to the situation, and concluded that NAGPRA was applicable. The COE proposed to return the remains to a coalition of Native American groups. This action was challenged by a group of scientists and others who successfully argued that the provisions of NAGPRA were not applicable. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded in Bonnichsen v. U.S. that the remains were not identifiable with any current day Native American group, and therefore the provisions of NAGPRA did not apply. An amendment to NAGPRA has been proposed in section 108 of S. 563, the "Native American Omnibus Act of 2005." If enacted, the amendment would define "Native American" within the context of NAGPRA so as to include a tribe, people, or culture that is or was indigenous to any geographic area that is now located within the boundaries of the United States. If enacted, the amendment could have an impact on the ultimate disposition of the remains of the Kennewick Man, as well as the control and custody of any other ancient human remains and related objects which may be discovered. Interest in NAGPRA is particularly strong during the summer of 2005, as severe weather conditions have caused various rivers in the continental United States--such as the Missouri River--to recede. This has exposed traditional Native American burial grounds which have been subject to increased looting and vandalism. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held oversight hearings on NAGPRA for July 28, 2005. The hearings focused on the proposed amendment contained in S. 563. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The practice of breastfeeding has expanded in recent years. Various legal issues have accompanied this development. The primary legal issues concern: 1) the ability of working mothers to breastfeed their children and/or to express milk during working hours; and 2) nursing and/or the expression of milk in public or semi-public places such as restaurants, public transportation facilities, and other locations where the public is present. Certain states have enacted legislation addressing breastfeeding in the workplace and exempting nursing mothers from laws dealing with indecent exposure and/or criminal behavior. Some states have enacted laws which excuse nursing mothers from jury service. State laws vary considerably in their scope and coverage. This report summarizes the various state laws concerning breastfeeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Approximately 30% of the land in the United States is under the control of federal land managers. Much of this public land is rich in paleontological [fossil] resources. Concern has been expressed over the management, conservation, and protection of these resources. There is no comprehensive statute or management policy for the protection or management of fossils located on federal lands. Federal authority for the management of such resources may be derived from a number of general statutes relating to the protection of public properties. The applicability of some of these statutes, such as the Antiquities Act and the Archeological Resources Protection Act, is uncertain or limited. General authority for fossil protection also may be derived from general criminal theft statutes dealing with the theft of government property and from certain site-specific statutes. There may also be certain regulatory authority which is provided by the statutes governing each agency's operations. In May 2000, the Secretary of the Interior released a comprehensive report concerning the management of fossils which are located on federal and Indian lands. The report was prepared at the request of Congress and it is considered to be the authoritative study of fossils on these lands. It has served as an impetus for federal legislation. The report outlined seven principles for the effective management of fossils which are located on federal land. Legislative activity concerning the protection of fossils located on federal lands has occurred in both the 107th and 108th Congresses. There have been two types of legislation: one type deals with specific fossil resources at a particular location; the other type provides comprehensive management and protection authority for fossils located on federal lands. In the 108th Congress, the Senate passed S. 546, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. The bill has been referred to two House committees. H.R. 2416, a similar bill, has been introduced in the House. The two bills provide a comprehensive approach to the management of fossils on federal lands, providing uniform definitions, public programs, specific prohibitions, permit procedures, and civil and criminal penalties. The bills would not modify the general mining or reclamation laws, or apply to lands other than federal lands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report traces the legislative history of the World War II Memorial and related legislation, from 1985 until the present day. The legislative history of forty pieces of relevant legislation and the related public events occurring simultaneously with the legislative process are examined in this report. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on different willful misconduct cases that would deny veterans with their benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The agency considers alcohol abuse as willful misconduct, even though the simple drinking of alcoholic beverages is not of itself willful misconduct. Vocational rehabilitation benefits and certain other benefits will be denied to veterans whose health conditions or disabilities resulted from willful misconduct.

The article focuses on the different requirements to quality for the disability benefits offered by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The disability compensation program and the pension program are the two basic disability benefit programs for veterans. Service and discharge requirements must be met to quality for service-connected disability compensation. Prior to the award of a non-service-connected pension, the fundamental eligibility requirements of discharge must be met.

The article focuses on the benefits offered by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to veterans and to certain members of their families. The benefits extended by the VA to veterans include health care, education, home financing and life insurance. It details the two-step process used by the VA to evaluate disability claims, as well as to determine eligibility for other VA benefits.

A discussion of legislative bills concerning the veterans' claims appeals process introduced in the 111th U.S. Congress is presented.

The article discusses the 120-day deadline for filing veterans' claims appeals against the decision of the Board of Veterans Affairs (BVA) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). Particular focus is given to the potential to extend the filing deadline in certain circumstances. One example given is the case Henderson v. Shinseki appealed to the Supreme Court. In this case, veteran David Henderson appealed the decision of the BVA to deny his benefits claim after he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

The article discusses the role of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) in dealing with veterans' claims appeals in the U.S. The BVA is in charge of reviewing benefit claims appeals and issuing decisions on such appeals. A veteran's appeal will be forwarded by a local Veterans Affairs (VA) office to the docket of the BVA and will be decided on a first come, first served basis. The duration of time for the BVA to reach a decision may take an average of two years from the time of the filing of a Notice of Disagreement (NOD), according to the VA.

The contact information of the author of the report "Veterans Affairs: Basic Eligibility for Disability Benefit Programs" is presented.