PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 117-289.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 27, 2022
This act requires the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to seek to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to conduct a comprehensive review of VA medical examinations provided to individuals who submit claims for compensation for a service-connected disability related to military sexual trauma.
Specifically, NASEM must review VA examinations that are provided for mental and physical conditions linked to military sexual trauma and are conducted to assess the impairments of individuals arising from such trauma.
NASEM must report on its review, and the VA must report on its plans to implement actions based on NASEM's findings and recommendations.
People & committees
Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 117-289.
Became Public Law No: 117-289.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7302)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 414 - 2 (Roll no. 217). (text: CR H5108-5109)
House roll call 217 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 414 - 2 (Roll no. 217).
House roll call 217 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5142-5143)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6064.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5108-5109)
Mr. Takano moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.
Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6064 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6064 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6064 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6064 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.