[Senate Hearing 109-296]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-296
DEATH BENEFITS AND SERVICES AVAILABLE TO SURVIVORS OF MILITARY
PERSONNEL AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO ENHANCE THESE BENEFITS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 1, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-313 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN WARNER, Virginia, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona CARL LEVIN, Michigan
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine JACK REED, Rhode Island
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri BILL NELSON, Florida
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina EVAN BAYH, Indiana
JOHN CORNYN, Texas HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
Judith A. Ansley, Staff Director
Richard D. DeBobes, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Death Benefits and Services Available to Survivors of Military
Personnel and Legislative Proposals to Enhance These Benefits
february 1, 2005
Page
Allen, Senator George, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia... 6
DeWine, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio........... 28
Chu, Hon. David S.C., Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness.................................................. 30
Epley, Robert J., Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and
Program Management, Veterans Benefits Administration,
Department of Veterans' Affairs................................ 38
Cody, GEN Richard A., USA, Vice Chief of Staff, United States
Army........................................................... 43
Nathman, ADM John B., USN, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, United
States Navy.................................................... 48
Nyland, Gen. William L., USMC, Assistant Commandant, United
States Marine Corps............................................ 50
Moseley, Gen. T. Michael, USAF, Vice Chief of Staff, United
States Air Force............................................... 56
(iii)
DEATH BENEFITS AND SERVICES AVAILABLE TO SURVIVORS OF MILITARY
PERSONNEL AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO ENHANCE THESE BENEFITS
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:39 a.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Inhofe,
Sessions, Collins, Talent, Chambliss, Graham, Dole, Cornyn,
Thune, Levin, Lieberman, Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin
Nelson, Dayton, and Clinton.
Also present: Senators Allen and DeWine.
Committee staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, staff
director; and Cindy Pearson, assistant chief clerk and security
manager.
Majority staff members present: Gregory T. Kiley,
professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel;
Diana G. Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F.
Walsh, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Gabriella Eisen, research assistant;
Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel; Peter K. Levine, minority
counsel; and Michael J. McCord, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Catherine E. Sendak, Bridget E.
Ward, and Pendred K. Wilson.
Committee members' assistants present: Cord Sterling,
assistant to Senator Warner; Christopher J. Paul and Marshall
A. Salter, assistants to Senator McCain; John A. Bonsell,
assistant to Senator Inhofe; Arch Galloway II, assistant to
Senator Sessions; Lindsey R. Neas, assistant to Senator Talent;
Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Meredith
Moseley, assistant to Senator Graham; Christine O. Hill,
assistant to Senator Dole; Mieke Y. Eoyang, assistant to
Senator Kennedy; Erik Raven, assistant to Senator Byrd; Davelyn
Noelani Kalipi and Darcie Tokioka, assistants to Senator Akaka;
Amy Akiyama, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Eric Pierce,
assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; and Andrew Shapiro; assistant
to Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. The hearing will come to order. We welcome
all present here today.
The world witnessed an extraordinary chapter in the history
of mankind with these elections this weekend, striking a blow
for freedom in Iraq. Our President, President Bush, addressed
the Nation shortly after the elections were underway there on
Sunday morning, and he gave due credit to all of those who made
this election possible. But the courage of the men and women of
the Armed Forces of the United States and other coalition
forces, together with the Iraqi professional military forces
and the people of Iraq and many others, are owed a great debt
of gratitude. We gather here this morning to examine, in the
context of a Senate hearing, the importance of giving greater
recognition to the sacrifices of those who lose their lives in
this cause of freedom.
I particularly welcome this morning the families who are
present, the Gold Star Mothers, the National Military Family
Association, and others. We thank you very much for joining us
here today and not only today, but you are ever-present in your
mission on behalf of the families. So it is not just today but
it is 365 days a year, and we thank you very much for that.
This morning's witnesses are Dr. Chu, Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness; General Cody, Vice Chief
of Staff, United States Army; Admiral Nathman, Vice Chief of
Naval Operations; General Nyland, assistant Commandant of the
Marine Corps; General Moseley, Vice Chief of Staff for the Air
Force; and Mr. Epley. We thank you for joining us here this
morning.
I will ask unanimous consent that I place into the record
my opening statement because I feel that there are members of
this committee and, indeed, in a totally bipartisan manner,
other Senators who have been in the very forefront of this
issue. We are privileged to have on our committee our
distinguished colleague, Mr. Sessions. He teamed up with Mr.
Lieberman, and at this moment, I would like to recognize
Senator Sessions for a few comments.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
The committee meets today to receive testimony on the full
range of death benefits and services available to survivors of
military personnel, and on legislative proposals to enhance
those benefits. We currently have five such proposals referred
to this committee. I thank our witnesses for being here today,
and look forward to their views on this timely and important
subject.
Based on news reports we began to see last night--in
advance of receiving your written testimony, Mr. Secretary,
this hearing would appear to be very timely. It was reported
that the President has indicated he will support significant
increases in death benefits, to include increasing the death
gratuity to $100,000 retroactive to October 7, 2001, and
raising the insurance available under Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance (SGLI) from $250,000 to $400,000. We look
forward to hearing your testimony about these reports.
There is, of course, no issue of greater importance to this
committee than the well-being of the families of the men and
women who serve in our Armed Forces. These brave individuals
who make up our superb All-Volunteer Force are able to serve,
in no small measure, because of the support and encouragement
of their spouses, children, parents, and other family members.
Protecting the welfare of these family members--particularly
the spouses and dependent children--is a sacred trust that the
Services share with individual servicemembers.
By their very nature, military operations, military
training, and military service involve danger and the ever-
present risk of injury and fatalities. While extraordinary
efforts are made throughout the force each day to ensure all
personnel are fully trained and ready in every respect for the
dangers that may await them, casualties are incurred. The
ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have underscored
these dangers, but also the strengths of the All-Volunteer
Force. Our Nation owes a debt of gratitude to the men and women
of the Armed Forces and their families. Our prayers go out to
those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and those who have
been injured in defense of freedom and for their families.
Congress and this committee, in particular, have been
diligent over the years in carefully monitoring and, where
necessary, enhancing the death benefits and services available
to military personnel. I am proud of the committee's record in
constantly working to improve programs under our jurisdiction,
such as the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), the death gratuity,
TRICARE, and various benefits that assist surviving family
members of those who die in uniform. I note that there is an
additional series of benefits which falls under the
jurisdiction of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has been a full partner in
the effort to ensure survivors and next of kin of military
personnel are adequately provided for. Recent studies by DOD
and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that
the system of benefits provided to survivors of members who die
on Active-Duty is ``adequate, substantial, and comprehensive,''
but these studies provided suggestions for improvements and set
the stage for the discussions we engage in today and the
recommendations for change we are about to receive.
With the start of the 109th Congress, several of our
colleagues have introduced legislation that would further
enhance the benefits made available to survivors and next of
kin of those who die on Active-Duty. For example, the Majority
Leader introduced S.3, the Protecting America in the War on
Terror Act of 2005, on January 24. Title II of this bill
provides for an increase in the death gratuity to $100,000,
raises the limit on SGLI to $300,000, and enhances the TRICARE
medical coverage already available to dependent children of
military decedents.
Senator Sessions has introduced the (HEROES) Act--S.77,
which has provisions very similar to those reported last night.
I note that Senator Lieberman is the primary co-sponsor. This
legislation would raise the level of SGLI coverage to $400,000
and also increase the death gratuity to $100,000. I
congratulate Senator Sessions on his leadership and untiring
efforts over the past 2 years on this subject.
Our ranking member, Senator Levin, introduced S.11, which,
among its various purposes, would enhance death benefits. There
are others: S.44, introduced by Senators Hagel, Kennedy, and
Clinton; S.121 introduced by Senator DeWine; and S.42,
introduced by Senator Allen.
Clearly, this is a subject of great importance. In
consultation with Senator Levin, I decided to have an early
hearing on this issue. The presence here today of all of the
Service Vice Chiefs, as well as the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness, and a representative from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) will ensure a
comprehensive exchange of views. My expectation is that I and
the members of the committee will come away with a better
understanding of the actions that need to be taken in the
future.
Chairman Warner. I'd also like to insert Senator Roberts'
statement for the record at the point.
[The prepared statement of Senator Roberts follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Pat Roberts
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank our distinguished
panel for being here today and for their service to the country. I know
your time is valuable, and I appreciate your attention to this matter.
We are here to discuss an important responsibility borne by the
Armed Services--how to assist the families of soldiers who make the
ultimate sacrifice. Fort Riley, in my home State of Kansas, has sent
thousands of soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan, and will continue to
send soldiers until the fight is over. Sadly, not all return. When that
happens, we all share the responsibility of ensuring that family
members left behind, spouses and children alike, are provided for
financially. I am pleased that the administration has announced that it
will increase the death gratuity as well as the amount of life
insurance our service men and women will receive in the event they make
the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the Nation.
There is another issue I would like to briefly discuss. Across the
Nation, civilian employers of members of the Guard and Reserve have
gone above the call of duty in extending differential pay to the
reservists called to serve. This differential pay ensures reservists
that their families will be provided for financially while they are
serving overseas. However, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tells
employers and their deployed employees that because of an obscure
revenue ruling made nearly four decades ago, the differential pay
provided cannot be considered as a wage and, as a result, the
servicemember who receives this pay will have to file and pay a
quarterly estimated income tax or face stiff penalties. Congress found
this practice absurd and adopted a resolution as part of last year's
Department of Defense authorization bill which essentially told the IRS
to fix this matter. The IRS, to date, has done nothing except further
burden the men and women in uniform and their families. I hope you will
agree with me that this situation needs to be fixed.
Gentlemen, it seems as though we must prod the IRS into providing
safe harbor for guardsmen and reservists serving on Active-Duty and, at
the very least, ensure that the IRS provides the necessary resources to
our troops and their families so that, between fighting insurgents and
rebuilding a nation, our troops can file their quarterly estimated tax
returns.
I hope you all agree with me that this is an archaic ruling that
helps no one, and serves only to harm the citizen soldiers who fight
for freedom around the world. As we continue to explore ways to provide
the very best for our soldiers and their families, I implore the
Services to address this matter.
Chairman Warner. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you think about it, for our Nation to be able to be
effective militarily, there needs to be a bond between the
people and the soldiers who go out and put their lives at risk
to execute the policies that the people have asked them to
execute. There needs to be a deep and abiding bond there.
In the legislation that Senator Lieberman and I have
offered, I have just been really impressed with the grass roots
support and the surge of support that I am seeing from the
American people, because they want to be involved. They want to
be sure that the families of soldiers who are serving our
country and give their lives for their country are well taken
care of if something happens to them. Soldiers that go and
serve our country and put their lives at risk, need to know
that if something happens to them, their families will be well
taken care of. I think that is the bond that we are involved in
here.
It is true that we have done a number of things to take
care of families, and some have erroneously felt that the only
benefit that families get is the death benefit of $12,000,
which was increased by the leadership of Senator Collins to my
left here just a few months ago or a year or so ago. That is
sort of where we are. I think the opportunity we have today is
to step forward as a Nation to be generous to those who have
given their lives for their country, and to take care of their
families in an effective way.
I want to thank Dr. Chu and the Department of Defense
(DOD). After we put language in last year's National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) asking that you review this situation
and help us work to achieve it, you have come back to me and
Senator Lieberman, and you presented ideas, some of which we
have worked, and drafted what we call the Honoring Every
Requirement of Exemplary Service (HEROES) Act, which I think
fundamentally addresses the core problems, which are increased
death benefits and increased Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance (SGLI). There are other ideas out there from other
Senators that also deserve serious consideration and that we
can move forward.
You have said you would put it in the budget. I am also
pleased that the President has indicated today his support and
that it would be in the budget.
So, Mr. Chairman, I will not take any more time. Thank you
for giving me this opportunity to sum up where we are. I
believe we have an excellent panel, people who really know
their business. They know the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines and what their lives are like, and I look forward to
that discussion as we go forward.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions.
Senator Lieberman, your distinguished colleague said you
can proceed here on your side of the aisle for a minute.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
to you and to Senator Levin for giving me this opportunity.
It has been a great honor to work with Senator Sessions and
others on both sides of the aisle on this matter. As we worked
together, Senator Sessions and I, on the Airland Subcommittee,
we confronted the reality of the death benefits that we were
providing for those who were giving their lives and risking
their lives in defense of our freedom and our security. The
more we knew, the more shocked and outraged we became and the
more we wanted to do something about it. As we worked together,
we knew that the more people learned what we had learned, the
more everybody would agree we had to do something because the
current situation is simply wrong and unfair, and it is in the
most fundamental sense of American values, un-American.
That is how the HEROES Act came together. We have, I think,
almost 20 co-sponsors from both parties.
I am very grateful to hear this morning that the President,
the administration, and the Pentagon are embracing these ideas,
supporting them, and most important of all putting them in the
budget. That will make them real, as the witnesses will testify
to today, they will be generous and retroactive to the fall of
2001 so that they will cover the survivors of all who have
given their lives in the conflicts that have occurred since
then.
Just to say very briefly, apart from the paltry sum of the
death benefit itself, even when added to the other benefits it
is not enough, particularly when compared to the appropriately
generous compensation we gave to those who lost their lives on
September 11. When you compare the two, there was an imbalance
that is not acceptable. I believe the average award for
survivors of September 11 victims was over $2 million. I
understand that there are different circumstances, but still,
it is a measure of America's trust and generosity to those who
we lose in this and other conflicts.
The fact is, as you all know better than we, the military
has changed, and when its original death benefit was set, the
military was largely young, single men. Today, if I have it
right, well over half those on Active-Duty are married. They
have families.
Look at Iraq today. Is it 40 percent Reserve and Guard now?
Maybe it is getting close to 50 percent and probably going to
go down. Any of us who have been over there and seen it know
our own Reserve and Guard are there. These folks are in their
30s, 40s, and 50s with families. If, God forbid, they lose
their lives, we do not want their families to have to live not
only with the profound pain and loss of having lost their loved
one, but also in poverty. It is just not our way. That is why
we are getting together in a very hopeful act, way beyond
partisan lines, to make this wrong right.
There is a wonderful line that I saw from Teddy Roosevelt
who said probably a century ago or more: ``A man who is good
enough to shed blood for his country is good enough to be given
a square deal afterward.'' Of course, that is a compelling
argument for veterans' benefits of all kinds. But, maybe in
this regard, we should amend the great T.R.'s words and say
that men and women good enough to risk their lives in defense
of our country ought to know that if they are called upon to
make the ultimate sacrifice, that they can be confident that
their families will be well taken care of. That is what we all
are going to join together to do today.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and Senator
Sessions, again, it is a great pleasure to work with you as
always.
I thank the witnesses for the good news that they are
bringing us and America's service men and women this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Senator Allen, you and Senator Nelson put in legislation.
We are glad to have you join us this morning.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE ALLEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your leadership once again on issues that matter to those who
are serving our country.
I have joined with Senator Nelson of Florida in introducing
S.42.
I want to commend Senator Collins for, over the years,
working on this question of death benefits or the death
gratuity and Senator Sessions' measure as well which has more
than just the death gratuity.
I will speak very briefly, first thanking all those
families who have also made the ultimate sacrifice for the
advancement of freedom. They ought to feel success and a bit of
pride with the elections in Iraq because their son or their
daughter, their husband, their spouse, or maybe one of their
parents was involved in this effort to bring freedom to Iraq
and also make our country secure.
The death gratuity, when I first saw it, was about $6,000,
which seemed to be a pathetic amount. It was taxed. Senator
Collins doubled it, and I was cosponsor of that, as well as
many here to make it nontaxable. Still, $12,000. Someone loses
their life serving our country. It is a paltry, miserly, and
indeed in my view, insulting amount.
So Senator Nelson is signing on this measure, as well as
Senator Dole, Mike DeWine, Ben Nelson, David Vitter, Senator
Collins, and Lisa Murkowski. It is to increase the death
gratuity to $100,000.
How does one determine what is an appropriate amount? It is
always hard to value life, but I looked at what our law
enforcement and fire fighters receive across this country if
they die, and it is generally between $50,000 and $100,000. In
Virginia, Mr. Chairman, the average is $75,000. $100,000 will
not replace that loved one, but I think a grateful Nation, it
is my sincere sense, wants to provide for those families who
have also made the ultimate sacrifice.
So I am glad to hear the administration is on board. Our
measure is retroactive to October 1, 2001 when the military
action occurred. It simply increases the death gratuity from
$12,000 to $100,000, and whether one is in a combat zone or
not, if one is on duty, they will receive that death gratuity.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this and
many other issues.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have a Foreign
Relations Committee meeting right now on Iraq and will have to
leave.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Bill Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your leadership.
We are all of one accord here in modernizing this benefit,
but there is another inequity that needs to be corrected and
that is how we treat our widows and orphans. Need I remind any
of you it is from the Holy Scriptures. The Good Book, both in
Isaiah, as well as in the New Testament in James, says there is
no higher priority than the widows and orphans.
Yet, we have a glaring, unfair inequity in law that people
purchase their retiree disability benefits. They are entitled
to survivors' benefits. But under current law, if you happen to
be the survivor, a widow or orphan, of a disabled person, of
which you are entitled to those benefits too, in fact, they are
offset. So we will hear testimony about how much this costs,
but the fact is it is a glaring unfairness in the way that we
treat widows and orphans. If one has purchased a certain
benefit under survivors' benefits and are entitled to another
benefit because of disability, why under current law should we
allow it to stand that they offset each other?
So I am going to keep ringing the bell, Mr. Chairman, for
fairness that we treat the least of these among us as they
should be treated.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bill Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Bill Nelson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I'd like to discuss two glaring
inequities in how this country treats the survivors of its military
retirees. It is my belief that we owe a solemn debt to those men and
women who spend the best years of their lives in military service to
their country, and who have dedicated themselves to preserving our
freedom. Quite simply, I cannot think of a nobler life's mission.
How we treat our veterans and their families is a reflection of our
esteem for their service. As one newsmagazine recently put it,
``America's commitment to the survivors of the tsunami is a mark of our
generosity. The commitment we make to those who voluntarily put
themselves in harm's way to fight our wars is a mark of our
character.''
Last year, Congress and this committee made great progress to
benefit military retirees and their families by repealing the law that
prohibits concurrent receipt of military retired pay and Department of
Veterans' Affairs (VA) disability compensation for our 100 percent
disabled retirees. I have received hundreds of letters in my office
from veterans living in my State of Florida, thanking this committee
and Congress for treating them with the dignity that their service
demands.
Mr. Chairman, despite this success, many military retirees and
their survivors still face unfair treatment in receiving the benefits
they have earned or purchased. The same sort of unfair benefit
reduction that we just eliminated in the last Congress for 100 percent
disabled retirees still exists for their survivors--between payments
from the Survivors' Benefit Plan (SBP) and the VA Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation (DIC). This is the first of the two inequities
that are addressed in legislation that I have introduced in S.185, the
Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act of 2005.
As my colleagues will know, the SBP is a purchased annuity which,
after years of premium payments, provides income to the survivors of
100 percent disabled military retirees and those who die in Active
service. The VA's DIC benefit is received by the surviving spouse of an
Active-Duty or retired military member who dies from a service-
connected cause. Under current law, even if the surviving spouse of
such a servicemember is eligible for SBP, that purchased annuity is
reduced by the amount of DIC she receives.
Mr. Chairman, I have conducted some research into this matter, and
neither I nor my staff can find another incidence of a purchased
annuity benefit being cancelled or reduced on the basis that some other
source of income exists. It simply is not fair that this benefit can be
taken away due to cause of death. If military service caused a retired
member's death, the VA indemnity compensation should be added to the
SBP the retiree paid for, not substituted for it. For members killed on
Active-Duty, a surviving spouse can avoid the dollar-for-dollar offset
only by assigning SBP to children. But that forfeits any SBP claim
after the children reach adulthood, leaving the spouse with benefits
less than $1,000 per month in DIC from the VA. Mr. Chairman, brave
Americans who give their lives for their country deserve fairer
treatment for those they leave behind.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Government gives DIC to the families of
military personnel whose death is related to their service because we
feel that such honorable sacrifices merit something extra. Not because
we believe that the families of such men and women no longer deserve
the SBP benefit they have paid for.
The Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act of 2005 addresses
this situation in two important ways. First, it repeals the offset
language in the law, which is the basis of the problem I have just
described. Second, it allows those surviving spouses who have assigned
SBP to their children to switch it back to themselves. Together these
two changes to the current law will set right the treatment of
surviving spouses.
The second serious problem for SBP recipients addressed in the
Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act of 2005 is the effective
date for paid-up status. As my colleagues know, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 provided that SBP enrollees may
stop paying premiums if they have reached 70 years of age and have been
paying in for 30 years. The problem with this arrangement is that the
effective date was set at October 1, 2008. The SBP program was started
in 1972, meaning that there were 36 years between the effective date
and when the earliest enrollees joined the system. Military enrollees
who joined SBP between 1972 and 1978 are therefore required to pay for
more than 30 years to reach paid-up status, whereas everyone who came
after them is paid-up after just 30.
Mr. Chairman, this effective date of October 1, 2008, forces
thousands of ``greatest generation'' retirees who signed up for SBP at
its beginning to pay premiums for up to 36 years. The intention of the
law is that retirees will pay into SBP for 30 years, and then reach
paid-up status. The letter of the law, however, dictates that while
most retirees will pay premiums for 30 years and reach paid-up status,
our most aged retirees, many of them World War II combat veterans now
in their eighties, will be forced to pay up to 20 percent longer. These
early retirees also paid the highest premiums since they were set at 10
percent of retired pay until 1990, when they were reduced to 6.5
percent. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this inequity is not what
the 105th Congress had in mind when they allowed paid-up status.
The Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act of 2005 addresses
this second problem very directly, by changing the effective date from
October 1, 2008, to October 1, 2005. This will end the waiting now
being imposed upon our most aged retirees, beginning in fiscal year
2006.
It is time to provide our military retirees and their families what
they have earned and purchased, and restore basic fairness to military
widows, widowers, and retirees. I call for support from my Senate
colleagues for this important legislation.
Mr. Chairman, my thanks to you and Senator Levin for your
leadership, to my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their
consideration, and to the leaders of our armed services with us today.
I look forward to the work we will do together as we move this
important bill to final passage.
Chairman Warner. I thank you very much, Senator. We will
have the opportunity to explore those other options.
I would like to say the distinguished ranking member of the
committee, Senator Levin, introduced his own legislation.
Senator Levin, I would like very much to recognize your
contribution in this important effort and ask now if you would
like to make a complete opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much
for holding this very important hearing.
I join you first in welcoming our impressive panel of
witnesses and also a particularly warm welcome to families and
those who have been fighting for fairness and equity for
benefits for a long time. We will keep that fight going as long
as they are here and as long as their families are here to join
with them.
I hope this hearing will help the American public to
understand the current benefit system and to guide us toward an
enhancement of these benefits because they are simply
inadequate. No benefit can replace the loss of a life of a
soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who gives his or her life in
service to our country. Every survivor would choose to have the
servicemember alive and healthy rather than any compensation
that our Government could provide. But that does not mean that
our benefits should not be full and generous. To say what I
just did is simply a recognition that we cannot place a
monetary value on a life that is given in service to our
Nation.
Yesterday, the DOD reported that over 1,400 servicemembers
have given their lives in Iraq, almost 1,100 of them now in
hostile action. Nearly every day, we learn about servicemembers
killed in ambushes by improvised explosive devices (IEDs),
helicopter crashes, including the helicopter crash last week
that took the lives of 30 marines and 1 sailor. Our men and
women in the military have opened the door for a democratic
Iraq. They have made it possible that Iraqis now can walk
through that door, and there are many steps ahead, and more of
our lives, as well as Iraqi lives, of course, are going to be
lost in this effort.
How does this Nation reach out to survivors of these brave
servicemembers to express our gratitude and to make sure that
the survivors are not left on their own to deal with the loss
of their loved one who in most cases, as Senator Lierberman has
pointed out, provides the primary financial support for that
family?
Survivors currently receive immediate financial assistance
in the form of a death gratuity, currently at $12,400. It is
adjusted upward each year to keep pace with increases in
military pay. That is the immediate tax-free, lump-sum payment
that is supposed to help survivors cover living expenses and
other immediate needs until other benefits have time to kick
in. As has been indicated by everyone who has spoken and, I
believe, as is felt by every member of this committee, that
benefit is totally inadequate.
A number of other benefits kick in later to support the
survivors. Every Active-Duty servicemember is automatically
enrolled in the Government-subsidized SGLI for $250,000, unless
the servicemember specifically and positively elects lesser or
no coverage. Very few servicemembers opt out of the maximum
coverage and that benefit is tax-free.
There are then two annuities that apply. Survivors receive
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), which is a
nontaxable monthly annuity administered by the Department of
Veterans' Affairs (VA). Surviving spouses also receive an
annuity through the military Survivors' Benefit Plan (SBP). The
amount of this annuity varies by length of service and by the
rank of the servicemember. It is equal to 55 percent of the pay
that the servicemember would have been entitled to on the day
that he or she died, based on 100 percent disability. That is
the reference that Senator Bill Nelson has made. The amount of
a spouse's SBP annuity is reduced by the amount of the DIC
received from the VA.
I want to repeat that because this is a huge issue. It is
one that Senator Bill Nelson addresses, and I think all of us
must take note of and, hopefully, correct it. The amount of a
spouse's SBP annuity is reduced by the amount of the DIC which
is received from the VA.
Now, a number of legislative proposals to increase these
benefits have been offered by members of this committee and
Members of Congress. Reacting to the pressure, the Pentagon has
come around and announced yesterday that it would support an
increase in the death gratuity to $100,000 and the SGLI benefit
to $400,000. However, there are a number of problems with the
Pentagon proposal.
First, their proposal limits the death gratuity increase to
members serving in areas of operation (AOs) designated by the
Secretary of Defense. The increased insurance would be paid for
by the Government only for members serving in those same areas.
Now, I obviously support the increases. I think most all of
us probably do, but I also believe that they should apply to
survivors of all members who die on Active-Duty. The bill that
was introduced by the Democratic leadership this week, called
S.11, The Standing with Our Troops Act of 2005, would increase
the death gratuity to $100,000 for all servicemembers who die
on Active-Duty. It would eliminate the requirement that a
surviving spouse's survivor benefit annuity be reduced by the
amount of DIC received by the VA. Again, that is the point
which Senator Bill Nelson has referred to and which he has
fought to try to correct.
Now, we received, Mr. Chairman, a statement from the
National Military Family Association (NMFA) that states the
following: ``The survivor benefit package should not create
inequities by awarding different benefits to families who lose
a servicemember in a hostile zone versus those who lose their
loved one in a training mission preparing for service in a
hostile zone. To the family, the loss is the same.''
Now, that highly respected organization also states that
``the benefit change that will provide the most significant
long-term protection to the family's financial security would
be to end the dependency and indemnity compensation offset to
the survivor benefit plan.'' So we have to put this in front of
us as one of the changes to be considered, one that I think
many of us, including myself, very much support.
I want to thank that Association and the others who have
come here today and all who fight and advocate for military
families. I would request, Mr. Chairman, that the full
statement of the National Military Family Association be
included in the record at this time.
Chairman Warner. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of the National Military Family
Association follows:]
Prepared Statement by the National Military Family Association
The National Military Family Association (NMFA) is the only
national organization whose sole focus is the military family and whose
goal is to influence the development and implementation of policies
that will improve the lives of those family members. Our mission is to
serve the families of the seven uniformed services through education,
information and advocacy.
Founded in 1969 as the National Military Wives Association, NMFA is
a non-profit 501(c)(3) primarily volunteer organization. NMFA today
represents the interests of family members and the Active-Duty,
National Guard, Reserve, and retired personnel of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Public Health Service, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
NMFA volunteer representatives in military communities worldwide
provide a direct link between military families and NMFA's staff in the
Nation's capital. Representatives are the ``eyes and ears'' of NMFA,
bringing shared local concerns to national attention. NMFA receives no
Federal grants and has no Federal contracts. NMFA's Web site is located
at http://www.nmfa.org.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, the NMFA
appreciates your interest in military families, especially the
survivors of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. NMFA is
grateful for the opportunity to present testimony about the needs of
those families. We believe the focus should be on the total package of
benefits available for them, immediately and for the long term.
NMFA is grateful to the committee for the work it has done over the
past several years to enhance the benefits provided to all survivors of
those killed on Active-Duty or as a result of disabilities incurred as
a result of Active-Duty service. The extension of the Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP) annuity payment to the survivors of servicemembers killed on
Active-Duty is an example of those enhancements. We believe that the
government's obligation as articulated by President Lincoln, ``to care
for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his
orphan,'' is as valid today as it was at the end of the Civil War. The
committee's willingness to provide a forum for discussion of all
aspects of benefits for survivors of Active-Duty deaths serves an
important purpose. As seen in media reports and in questions we hear
from military families and others concerned about military families,
NMFA believes there is a lot of misinformation and confusion about what
the complete benefit is for those whose servicemembers have made the
ultimate sacrifice. We know that there is no way to compensate them for
their loss, but we do owe it to these families to help ensure a secure
future.
NMFA strongly believes that all servicemembers' deaths should be
treated equally. Servicemembers are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, 365 days a year. Through their oath, each servicemember's
commitment is the same. The survivor benefit package should not create
inequities by awarding different benefits to families who lose a
servicemember in a hostile zone versus those who lose their loved one
in a training mission preparing for service in a hostile zone. To the
family, the loss is the same.
In this testimony, NMFA will focus on the survivor benefits package
as it pertains to the survivors of those killed in the line of duty
while serving on Active-Duty including those eligible members of the
Guard and Reserve. A summary of the Federal benefits provided to
survivors is provided in Appendix 1.
concerns and recommendations
A scene is becoming all too common as America wages the global war
against terrorism. Brave servicemembers are sacrificing their lives in
service to their country. It may happen on a dusty battlefield or
village in Iraq or Afghanistan or may be the result of an unfortunate
helicopter crash at Fort Hood, Texas. While specifics vary by Service,
the overall process is the same. The family is visited by the casualty
notification team consisting of the chaplain and a member of the
servicemember's unit. This family will never be the same again. A
casualty assistance officer is assigned to help the family cope with
the trying days ahead. Funeral arrangements are made. The memorial
service is conducted with military honors and the spouse is presented a
flag on behalf of a grateful nation. The bugler blows Taps and the
family goes home.
The spouse encounters a confusing array of decisions that must be
made, the consequences of which will influences his or her life and the
lives of the children for years to come. What can be done to alleviate
the stress and confusion facing the family? What changes can be made to
the present package of benefits to recognize the service and sacrifice
of the servicemember and family and provide appropriate compensation
that promotes the financial stability of the family?
NMFA believes the benefit change that will provide the most
significant long-term protection to the family's financial security
would be to end the Dependency Indemnity Compensation (DIC) offset to
the SBP. The DIC is a special indemnity (compensation or insurance)
payment that is paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) to the
survivor when the servicemember's service causes his or her death. It
is a flat rate payment, which for 2005 is $993 for the surviving spouse
and $247 for each surviving child. The SBP annuity, paid by the
Department of Defense (DOD) reflects the longevity of the service of
the military member. It is ordinarily calculated at 55 percent of
retired pay. Military retirees who elect SBP pay a portion of their
retired pay to ensure that their family has a guaranteed income should
the retiree die. If that retiree dies due to a service-connected
disability, their survivor is also eligible for DIC.
Two years ago, surviving spouses of all servicemembers killed on
Active-Duty were made eligible to receive SBP. The amount of their
annuity payment is calculated as if the servicemember was medically
retired at 100 percent disability. The equation is the basic pay times
75 percent times 55 percent. As seen in the examples included at the
end of this testimony (pp. 9-12), the annuity varies greatly, depending
on the servicemember's longevity of service. As the law is written
presently, if the amount of SBP is less than $993, the surviving spouse
receives only the DIC payment of $993 per month. If the amount of SBP
is greater than $993, the surviving spouse receives the DIC payment of
$993 per month (which is nontaxable) plus the difference between the
DIC and the SBP. For example, if the SBP is $1,500, the surviving
spouse receives $993 from DIC (nontaxable) and $507 from SBP that is
subject to tax each month. The DIC payment of $247 for each child is
not offset.
Surviving Active-Duty spouses have the option of several benefit
choices depending on their circumstances and the ages of their
children. By law, the SBP benefit is awarded to the spouse. As can be
seen in the examples, it is paid for the spouse's lifetime unless she
remarries. Because SBP is offset by the DIC payment, the spouse whose
SBP payment would be less than the amount of DIC may choose to waive
her SBP benefit and select the ``child only'' option. In this scenario,
the spouse would receive the DIC payment and her children would receive
the full SBP amount until the last child turns 18 (23 if in college),
as well as the individual child DIC until each child turns 18 (or 23 if
in college). As shown in the examples, once the children have left the
house, the spouse who has chosen this option will be left with an
annual income of $11,916 (in 2005 dollars). If there are no dependent
children, the surviving spouse whose SBP benefit is less than the $993
DIC payment will experience this income decline just 6 months following
the servicemember's death. In each case, this is a significant drop in
income from what the family had been earning while on Active-Duty. The
percentage of income loss is even greater for survivors whose
servicemembers had served longer on Active-Duty. Those who give their
lives for their country deserve fairer compensation for their surviving
spouses.
It has only been since the passage of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 that surviving spouses of
servicemembers who had not been retirement eligible and were killed on
Active-Duty have been entitled to receive the SBP benefit. This
eligibility was made retroactive to 10 September 2001. A correction in
P.L. 108-136 allows spouses to choose ``child only'' SBP benefits. This
change, effective only for deaths after 24 November 2003, allows some
families to recover the SBP benefits the spouse would lose because of
the DIC offset, but only temporarily. When the children's eligibility
ends because of age, the SBP benefit is lost to the family.
As we have described, the interaction between SBP and DIC is a
complex procedure to understand. Consider trying to make decisions
about this payment distribution a month after losing your spouse, while
still in a state of shock and denial.
NMFA recommends that the DIC offset to SBP be eliminated. Doing so
would recognize the length of commitment and service of the career
servicemember and spouse and would relieve the spouse of making hasty
financial decisions at a time when he or she is emotionally vulnerable.
NMFA believes that the survivor benefits package, as outlined in
Appendix 1, needs to be viewed as a whole and each individual benefit
be studied in the context of the whole package. The recent emphasis on
the death gratuity, for example, leads many of the uninformed to
believe that it is the only compensation that the surviving family
receives. The death gratuity, currently $12,420, is paid within 72
hours to help the families meet immediate expenses related to the death
of the servicemember. NMFA applauds recent increases to the death
gratuity, including the indexing of the payment to increases in basic
pay. As with these previous changes, any further increase should be
applied equally for all Active-Duty deaths.
NMFA recommends that any increased funding for the death gratuity
be applied to increase it across-the-board for all Active-Duty deaths.
The largest payment provided to surviving families soon after the
servicemember's death is from the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
(SGLI). The maximum coverage is currently $250,000. NMFA believes the
Services must educate young servicemembers on the importance of signing
up for maximum coverage under SGLI and especially on updating
beneficiary data. Information provided to NMFA indicates that more than
90 percent of Active-Duty servicemembers sign up for the maximum
amount. The opt-out system, wherein the servicemember needs to show why
he or she does not require SGLI, goes a long way in ensuring this
participation. We are, however, less sure that National Guard and
Reserve members are signing up at the same high rate. The election of
insurance is a family decision. Spouses should be included in the
decision making process and no servicemember should be allowed to opt-
out without the written consent of his or her spouse. We all have heard
of a few unfortunate instances where the servicemember had opted out of
SGLI when first offered it, then marries and does not sign up for it.
There are also cases where the servicemember does not change
beneficiary or primary next of kin on the paperwork when he or she
marries. While beneficiary information is supposed to be reviewed
periodically, in actuality some people fall through the cracks. NMFA
proposes a trigger mechanism, perhaps tied to TRICARE Defense
Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) registration, which
would prompt the servicemember to update survivor information when he
or she has a change in marital status or adds a dependent.
NMFA is aware that proposals to increase the amount of SGLI are
currently under discussion. We believe it is paramount that any
proposal to increase the maximum SGLI should be designed to create an
incentive for the servicemember to take the maximum amount. For
example, NMFA supports the proposal included in the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2005, that would provide an
additional $100,000 in coverage without an increase in the premium for
servicemembers electing the maximum amount. Any increase in maximum
coverage should be available to all servicemembers.
NMFA recommends that spouses be involved in the decision process if
the servicemember elects to opt-out of SGLI. We also suggest a trigger
mechanism to prompt the servicemember to update survivor information,
i.e. designation of primary next of kin, election of SGLI, or change of
beneficiary, when family status changes. NMFA also recommends that
proposals to increase coverage be designed to ensure that the
servicemember take the maximum amount and that the maximum coverage be
available to all servicemembers on Active-Duty.
Much of the benefit confusion experienced by surviving families
could be corrected by educating the servicemember and spouse about the
total survivor benefit package. While some commanders or family
readiness group leaders are reluctant to talk about this with families
because they feel it will induce added stress or concern, the opposite
is true. If the families have an overview of what benefits are
available in case of the death of the servicemember, this knowledge can
help relieve the stress when they go over the ``what if'' scenarios
during a deployment. NMFA has a concise overview of survivor benefits
in fact sheet format available on its Web site. We feel, however, that
DOD should provide a more in-depth overview or explanation, like the
annually-updated VA benefits, to be made available in pamphlet form and
on-line to educate servicemembers and their families. The DOD booklet
should focus on the survivor benefits available from all Federal
sources and not get caught up in the minutiae of individual Service
procedures.
NMFA recommends that DOD create a handbook similar to the annual VA
Benefits Handbook to provide easy access to survivor benefit
information to servicemembers and spouses.
The surviving family is presented with a large payment ($250,000
SGLI plus the $12,420 death gratuity) when the servicemember dies. The
management of that large sum of money is a huge responsibility,
especially if young children are involved. The surviving spouse also
needs to make decisions that impact the family for many years. The
bereaved spouse may be especially vulnerable to unscrupulous or
uninformed advisors, friends or family members who may try to take
advantage and ``help'' the surviving spouse spend or invest the
inheritance. The need for unbiased and fair financial counseling has
never been greater. At the present time, the VA offers the free
services of a financial counseling service ``Financial Point'' for 1
year after the servicemember is killed. The access to a long term
service to counsel the family members about what their options are
without a financial stake in the outcome could help the surviving
families establish an investment plan and make sound decisions about
what they should do that is best for their family.
NMFA believes that surviving spouses need long-term access to
counsel and advice concerning the entire benefit package. The surviving
family will have questions as the years go by and their benefits and
their need for different benefits changes. The young widow with a
toddler has too many immediate concerns to think about the child's
college education 15 years from now. However, she will be looking one
day for information about those benefits. Will she be able to access
that information and advice in an easy manner with someone who is an
expert in benefits for families? Or, will she be forced to walk into an
office where the counselor is more familiar with VA health benefits for
veterans than about education benefits for surviving children? The
surviving spouse needs information unique to her family, not a cookie
cutter, one size fits all answer.
Entities that provide this type of survivor-focused service do
exist. For example, Armed Forces Services Corporation (AFSC) has
supported the military community for years and is renowned for its
expertise in government and military survivor benefits and the
survivorship services provided to their military members and families.
AFSC's staff provide assistance in matters related to military
benefits, Social Security, Veterans' Affairs, and the military SBP,
death gratuity, SGLI/Veteran's Group Life Insurance (VGLI), among
others. The centerpiece of AFSC's services is their unique software
program that provides a personalized projection of the family's
integrated stream of government and military survivor benefits,
including changes to the benefit amounts throughout the surviving
family's lifetime. A service such as this would help surviving families
understand and coordinate their benefits in the years to come. Such a
service is so valued that presently Army Emergency Relief and the Navy
Marine Corps Relief Society present all surviving families of those
killed on Active-Duty with lifetime memberships in the Armed Forces
Services Corporation to guarantee that they receive the counseling and
advice they require.
NMFA recommends the establishment of a survivor office within the
VA to provide longterm information and support for surviving spouses
and children and offer individualized information about each surviving
family's benefit package. A significant element to that support should
be access to professional financial counseling.
To a child, the loss of a parent is a life-changing event. As he or
she goes through the process of grieving for the parent some help may
be required. The VA states that it offers grief counseling to families
through its Vet Centers; however, NMFA is concerned about the
Department's current capacity to provide that counseling for all who
need it. NMFA hopes the VA and DOD will work together to identify the
needs of surviving children and promote adequately-resourced programs
and initiatives to support those needs.
NMFA recommends that DOD and the VA identify the emotional needs of
surviving spouses and children, especially in the area of grief
counseling, and promote programs and initiatives to support those
needs.
The military service Casualty Assistance Officer (CAO) has received
training to help the family through these difficult times. This
assistance, however, is performed as an extra duty and the officer is
not an expert in survivor issues or financial counseling. Understanding
all the benefits and entitlements is a complex process. We have heard
from surviving families that they greatly appreciated the help and
support provided by the CAO in those first days as he or she served as
a representative of their parent service. The presence of the CAO
demonstrates to the family that ``we take care of our own'' and can be
a great comfort to the family as they go through the military funeral
and honors. Sometimes, however, training for this extra duty can be
hurried or incomplete and may result in misinformation or a missed step
in a procedure that is not discovered until months down the road with
consequences that are irrevocable. Family readiness group leaders and
other volunteer support could also benefit from specific training in
the area of benefits and support services available for surviving
family members.
NMFA recommends improved and consistent training for the CAOs and
family support providers so they can better support families in their
greatest time of need. Training and responsibilities of CAOs vary by
Service. It is only fair to families that they have the best help
available.
NMFA has also identified some small fixes to legislation and policy
that could help surviving families in their transition process. As we
all know, it is often the small inconvenience that may be the straw
that breaks the camel's back. Each surviving family has a unique
situation. The policy as written now allows the surviving family to
remain in government housing for 6 months after the death of the
servicemember. This date may come in the middle of a school semester or
year. When a child has had to cope with the death of a parent, the
consistency and support of their school is important. NMFA recommends
that the 6-month limit for occupancy of government quarters or military
housing privatized by DOD be waived to allow the children to finish the
school year if the family so chooses. Rent would be charged for the
extra time.
Guard and Reserve families may choose to keep their employer-
sponsored health and dental care when their servicemember is activated
and deployed. The family's eligibility for this care may cease if the
servicemember is killed on Active-Duty. These families may need
information and assistance in making the transition into the TRICARE
health system, but they are eligible for the benefit just as if they
had been using TRICARE when the servicemember died. However, in the
case of the TRICARE Dental Program (TDP), the dental insurance for
Active-Duty families, legislative changes are needed to make these
families eligible for the benefit available to other survivors. As the
law is currently written, only those families enrolled in the TDP at
the time of the servicemember's death are eligible to continue
enrollment and receive premium free dental insurance for 3 years. NMFA
recommends that in cases where the family has employer sponsored dental
insurance they be treated as if they had been enrolled in the TDP at
the time of the servicemember's death.
NMFA thanks this committee for your attention to the well-being of
military families, especially for those who have lost a loved one in
service to the Nation. Servicemembers killed on Active-Duty have made
the ultimate sacrifice. Their surviving families deserve the most
comprehensive package of benefits that a grateful nation can provide.
This package should reflect the obligation of the government to
compensate the survivors of all servicemembers killed on Active-Duty.
It must meet families' short-term needs, provide for their long term
financial stability, and recognize the commitment and service of the
servicemember and family. With this focus, a grateful Nation can
continue to fulfill the promise made to military families by President
Lincoln.
appendix 1
Benefits paid by the Department of Defense:
Death gratuity--$12,420, indexed to increases in basic
pay. This is paid to the designated next of kin and is not
taxable. This is supposed to be paid within 24 hours of
notification of death. The purpose of this payment is to help
the survivors in their readjustment and to aid them in meeting
immediate expenses.
Burial benefits--DOD will process, transport, and
inter remains. A casket, vault, and headstone are provided or
costs of up to $6,900 may be reimbursed if the family elects to
make private arrangements. Transportation costs for the
immediate family are reimbursed if they must travel for the
funeral.
Military Health and Dental Care Benefits--All
otherwise eligible spouses and children remain eligible for
military health care coverage. For 3 years from the date of
death, TRICARE benefits, including co-pays, remain the same as
Active-Duty family benefits. After 3 years, the cost of TRICARE
and TRICARE co-pays rise to those of retirees. In most cases,
the survivors receive dental insurance premium-free for 3
years, before becoming eligible for the premium-based Retiree
Dental Program. The spouse loses eligibility for medical and
dental benefits upon remarriage and it may not be reinstated.
Children have benefits until age 18 or 23 if enrolled in
college.
Survivor Benefit Plan--Surviving spouses of
servicemembers who die on active duty are entitled to SBP
benefits. SBP payments equal 55 percent of what the member's
retired pay would have been had the member been retired at 100
percent disability, i.e. 75 percent of the basic pay (Basic pay
times 75 percent times 55 percent). SBP is automatically
adjusted annually for cost of living increases. SBP payments
are subject to Federal income taxes. The spouse may decide to
waive their payment and have payment made to children only
until the children reach age 18 or 23 if enrolled in school. If
the spouse remarries before age 55, SBP payments cease. If the
subsequent marriage ends in death, divorce or annulment, SBP
may be reinstated. If the spouse remarries after age 55, the
SBP payments continue. SBP payments are offset by DIC payments.
Housing benefit--Surviving families may occupy
government quarters or be paid housing allowances for 180 days.
These allowances vary according to rank and geographic
location. In addition, the family is eligible for one move at
the cost of the government.
Servicemember's Group Life Insurance--All
servicemembers are automatically enrolled for $250,000 of
coverage unless they explicitly decline the insurance or
purchase lower levels of coverage. SGLI will be paid to the
individual designated on the servicemember SGLI election and
certificate form. If no beneficiary is elected by the
servicemember, the proceeds are paid first to the surviving
spouse; if none, the child(ren) (natural, adopted, or
illegitimate) in equal shares; if none, to the parents (natural
or adopted).
Other DOD benefits--Spouses are eligible for
Commissary, Exchange, Morale, Welfare, and Recreation
activities privileges indefinitely unless they remarry.
Children maintain eligibility until age 18 or 23, if still
enrolled in college.
Benefits paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs
Transition Assistance--a monthly payment of $250 paid
to surviving spouses with children for 2 years from the date of
death of the servicemember to help with transition.
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation--Surviving
spouses and children (and some dependent parents) are eligible
for DIC. The rate has been adjusted annually for cost of living
increases. The 2005 spouse DIC rate is $993 monthly. The DIC
payment is non-taxable. Additional amounts, also adjusted
annually, are authorized for a surviving spouse with minor
children. The current monthly benefit is $247 for each child.
Unmarried children are eligible for the benefit until they
reach the age of 18 (19 if still in secondary school), between
18 and 23 if they are attending a VA approved institution of
higher learning or for life if they are disabled while still
eligible for the benefit. Children of a deceased member, who
did not have a spouse at the time of death, receive a different
monthly benefit. If the spouse remarries before age 57, payment
of the spouse's DIC ends. The children's DIC payment continues
as long as they are eligible. If the subsequent marriage ends
in death, divorce or annulment, DIC will be reinstated.
Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance
Program--Surviving spouses and children are eligible for up to
45 months of education benefits. Beginning 1 July 2005, the
surviving spouse of a servicemember killed on Active-Duty has
an extended eligibility for education benefits of up to 20
years after the date of the member's death. Children are
normally eligible to receive the educational benefits between
their 18th and 26th birthdays. The current monthly benefit is
$803 per month and increases to $824 on 1 October 2005.
Home Loan Guarantees--An unremarried surviving spouse
is eligible for GI home loans and retains eligibility if
remarriage occurs after 57th birthday.
Benefits paid by the Social Security Administration:
Social Security monthly benefits are paid to a spouse
or a divorced spouse regardless of age if the children of the
deceased servicemember are under age 16 or are disabled and
meet social security requirements. The amount paid can only be
determined by the Social Security Administration.
Social Security Lump Sum Death Benefit--a payment of
up to $255 is paid to the surviving spouse living with the
member at the time of death or to the oldest surviving child if
there is no spouse. Some States also pay death benefits or
provide other support, especially to the survivors of National
Guard or Reserve members killed on Active-Duty. The scope of
these benefits and eligibility for them varies by State.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The National Military Family Association thanks Senator Jeff
Sessions and Senator Joe Lieberman for their active interest in the
well being of our military families should the unthinkable happen. NMFA
is grateful for the recognition in the HEROES Act of 2005 that the
election of insurance is a family decision and for including a
provision to ensure that spouses are included in that important
decision.
For the family members of a fallen servicemember, NMFA knows that
there is no way to compensate them for their loss, only to help them
prepare for their future. We strongly believe that all servicemembers'
deaths should be treated equally. Servicemembers are on duty 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Through their oath, each
servicemember's commitment is the same. The survivor benefit package
should not create inequities by awarding different benefits to families
who lose a servicemember in a hostile zone versus those who lose their
loved one in a training mission preparing for service in a hostile
zone. To the family, there is no difference. NMFA therefore supports
proposals for improvements to the survivor benefit package that are
consistent with our philosophy that all Active-Duty deaths be treated
equally. We encourage Members of Congress to examine the total package
with the goal of recognizing the service and sacrifice of the
servicemember and family and providing compensation that promotes the
financial stability of the family.
Kathleen B. Moakler, Deputy Director, Government Relations,
National Military Family Association, [email protected] www.nmfa.org,
703.931.6632, 703.931.4600 (FAX).
Senator Levin. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the
statement of Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who asked
to testify here today though it could not be worked out, be
placed in the record. He describes in his statement what New
Mexico has done for the New Mexico National Guard members who
are ordered to Active-Duty. They will pay the premium for the
$250,000 SGLI. It is a good example of what States can do to
support those who are called to Active-Duty. I would ask that
Governor Richardson's statement also be included in the record,
as well as a statement from the Gold Star Wives of America.
Both of those, Mr. Chairman, would make a real contribution to
this record.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, I join you in entering
Governor Richardson's statement and these other statements. It
has been the intention of the chair to do just that, but I
thank you very much.
[The prepared statements of Governor Richardson and the
Gold Star Wives of America follow:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Bill Richardson
Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, and members of the committee: I
appreciate the chance to offer written testimony for today's hearing on
death benefits and services available to survivors of military
personnel. I would also like to thank Senator Levin for his leadership
in the United States Senate, his commitment to our troops at home and
those serving abroad and for his efforts to have me testify before the
Committee in person today. I believe it's important for today's
discussion and future discussions, regarding military death benefits
and services available to survivors of military personal, to have the
input from our Nation's Governors who serve as the commanders in chief
of our respective National Guards.
During this time of war against terrorism, we can all agree that
few needs are more pressing, or more deserving of our attention, than
taking care of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. However,
with longer deployments and meager benefits, the strain on soldiers is
unimaginable. The pressures on their families can be unsustainable. The
National Guard and Reserves have been called to Active-Duty throughout
the world in unprecedented numbers. Few expected to be serving in Iraq
or Afghanistan, and fewer still had the time or resources to plan for
long deployments.
Meantime, soldiers are still dying. Just last week, 37 of our
troops lost their lives in a helicopter crash and in hostile actions
while serving in Iraq--the deadliest single day since the war began.
While both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have introduced
measures to assist those serving abroad as well as their husbands,
wives, and children at home, our troops deserve more than speeches.
They deserve action.
That is why I have taken it upon myself as Governor of New Mexico
to put forth a plan to pay for $250,000 in life insurance for all 4,027
Active-Duty New Mexico National Guard members. New Mexico will become
the first State in the country to enact the ``Take Care of Our Own''
legislation. It comes with an annual cost of $800,000 to the State.
Many Americans may not realize that the current military death
benefit pays survivors many already suffering financially during their
loved one's deployment--just $12,420. Yesterday, it was reported in an
Associated Press article that the administration plans to increase the
tax-free ``death gratuity,'' as part of their fiscal year 2006 budget
proposal to be submitted to Congress next week. I'm glad to see the
administration finally interested in supporting our troops and their
families. However, how long will it take before Congress decides to
act? I have heard too many stories of families and loved ones left with
nothing when their spouse, son or daughter dies in combat. This will
never happen again to a family in New Mexico. This is why as the
commander in chief of the State National Guard--I chose to act now.
The State Legislature is moving quickly. On Wednesday of last week,
the Guard provision passed the New Mexico House 70-0. The New Mexico
State Senate may act as early as today. The administration and Congress
should follow our lead, doing its part to cover reservists and all
military personnel. Washington should act now to provide for the
families of our service men and women who fall. There is already
national support for such a plan, as we found shortly after launching
this initiative. Officials from 20 States, both Republicans and
Democrats, have expressed interest in what we're doing. Those states
include: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas,
and Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, last May, I attended the funeral service for Marine
Lance Cpl. Aaron Austin, 21, one of nine New Mexican service personnel
killed in Iraq. He died near Fallujah in his second tour. Austin, who
had joined the military after the September 11 attacks, left behind a
fiancee, family, and friends. At his funeral, I saw proud Americans of
humble means suffering an unbearable loss. I vowed then to do something
to at least moderate their pain.
This somber story is repeated in communities in every State. A
soldier is killed. Those left behind struggle to pay the bills, raise
their family, and make ends meet.
As a Governor, I cannot dictate or control benefits for U.S.
military personnel, such as the Reserves. But I can help New Mexico
National Guard members and their families. I hope we can set a standard
for other states, and for our Federal Government, to match National
Guard troops and reservists who account for more than 40 percent of our
forces in Iraq. That number is expected to grow to 50 percent in the
months ahead. About 160,000 Guard troops and reservists are on Active-
Duty, including 60,000 in Iraq. Thousands more are being mobilized or
are on their way.
When those who serve sacrifice everything, we lose a hero. But
their families and loved ones lose much more. When our service men and
women are standing vigil on the front lines of the war on terror, they
should know that we are behind them and that if they fall, we will take
care of their families.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we have a
responsibility--a moral duty--to take care of our own--and we will. I
look forward to being able to participate in future hearings before the
committee, or one of its subcommittees, when it comes to the discussion
of death benefits and services available to survivors of military
personnel which include our very own National Guard and reservists.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Senator Levin for hosting this important
hearing today.
______
Prepared Statement by the Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
``With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in
the right, as God gives us to see right, let us strive to finish the
work we are in; to bind up the Nation's wounds. To care for him who has
borne the battle his widow and his orphan.''
President Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March
4, 1865
The Gold Star Wives of America appreciates the opportunity to
participate in this hearing to examine the survivor benefits and the
quality of services provided to the family members of those who die in
line-of-duty. Please accept our full statement for the record. My name
is Edith Smith, and I am the widow of a service connected disabled
retired marine.
The new members of Gold Star Wives, represented by our widows here
today, have expressed frustration in their letters to you with the
present system of Casualty Assistance as well as unanticipated bills
they have received for the funerals of their ``Fallen Hero.'' The
Casualty Assistance Officer (CAO) does not receive training for this
duty, and their prior knowledge of survivor benefits are generally
poor. However, our members do express great appreciation for the
officers themselves. In order to have some uniform information in the
Department of Defense's (DOD) Casualty Assistance program, we would
like to acquaint you with the Armed Forces Services Corporation,
formerly the benefit department of ``Army Air Force Mutual Aid
Association'' at Fort Myer, Virginia. This group serves as a lifetime
casualty assistance office with its unique computer program to project
the family's financial future of integrated government survivor
benefits from three main sources. They notify their members of all
changes to these benefits and assist the surviving spouse in applying
for those benefits. Gold Star Wives suggest that Armed Forces Services
Corporation be contracted to provide the uniform benefit information to
the CAO who will continue to represent the military service and assist
the family.
Gold Star Wives thanks the Members of the Senate for seeking ways
to improve survivor benefits for family members of this war. We are
firm in our belief that ``one death, one benefit'' should be provided
to all surviving spouses of Active-Duty deaths regardless of the cause
or place of death. Gold Star Wives is confused to learn that some
legislation that would provide more generous survivor benefits to
family members who had not been financially dependent on the fallen
soldier while denying these same benefits to a financially dependent
surviving family of the soldier killed in a ``friendly fire'' accident
in a different location or severely disabled from Iraq.
Gold Star Wives were not included in the legislation last year
which improved the survivor benefit payment. My husband paid for me to
have the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) benefit for 18 years before his
death. Were he alive today, our family income would have the disabled
retirees offset now eliminated, or if I remarried, my SBP eligibility
would be restored. We military widows should not be excluded from the
traditional spousal survivor benefit of the DOD.
Gold Star Wives believe the purposes of the SBP and Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation (DIC) have been lost. Military widows want the
dignity of receiving work-related survivor benefits from our husband's
employer. We are appreciative of the DIC paid by the Department of
Veterans' Affairs (VA) in recognition of their heroic military service
and our great sacrifice.
Gold Star Wives was asked to focus our remarks on the death
benefits provided to survivors of the catastrophically disabled
retiree. Too many soldiers in this war have horrible permanent injuries
caused by improvised explosive devices (IEDs). My own awareness of this
often overlooked group rises from my role as the widow of a retired 100
percent disabled marine who died in 1998.
Deaths within 120 days of retirement receive the same benefits and
services provided for an Active-Duty death.
The disparities in survivor benefits for the catastrophically
disabled arise after 120 days. These families must rise to very
difficult challenges that most of us can't begin to imagine. The
disparities in death benefits that Gold Star Wives have identified are:
No death gratuity.
The VA burial allowance for service-connected deaths
of $2,000 plus mileage falls far short of the military's $6,900
allowance. It is sad to know these families will pay to bury
their own.
VA's ``special compensation'' disabled retirees
receive up to $6,709; the surviving spouse receives $993; that
is 15 percent of the family income. The surviving spouse of a
100-percent disabled also receives the same indemnity
compensation of $993; or 41 percent. My husband lived more than
8 years with a 100-percent disability, so I received an
additional $213 DIC for assisting with his care. Soldiers who
suffer the most may not live 5 years for their surviving spouse
to qualify for this extra $213.
Casualty Assistance Officers not mandated for retired
survivors.
Life Insurance: the Serviceman's Group Life Insurance
(SGLI) must be converted to the Veterans' Group Life Insurance
(VGLI) within a short time. The higher cost VGLI is a term
insurance with premiums actuarily increased by age,
unsubsidized by the government, and with no waiver of premium
for permanent disability.
DIC eligibility is not automatic; cause of death must
be service related or live 10 years with the disability. It
becomes prudent for the retiree to purchase the military's SBP
with a cost of 6\1/2\ percent of retired pay to assure his
survivor, who has placed her career on hold, of a guaranteed
income.
Surviving family members of retirees are not eligible
for 3-year continuation of Active-Duty medical and dental
benefits.
Gold Star Wives suggests that the committee restructure survivor
benefits for surviving family members of the catastrophically disabled.
who we are
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., is a congressionally-chartered
service organization comprised of surviving spouses of military
servicemembers who died while on Active-Duty or as a result of a
service-connected disability. Many of our membership of over 10,000 are
the widows of servicemembers who were killed in combat during World War
II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and all those military operations
up to today's in Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost all of our members are
receiving DIC from the VA. Gold Star Wives has been working on Capitol
Hill to help maintain survivors benefits since it was founded in 1945.
Today, we continue to fight to maintain those benefits for not only our
members, but also for the over 330,000 survivors receiving DIC.
Gold Star Wives has a long history of performing volunteer
community service as well as volunteer work in our Nation's Veterans
Hospitals and many other places where they are needed. During 2003, 119
of our members volunteered in 49 Veterans' Affairs Volunteer Service
(VAVS) accredited hospitals and medical centers. Gold Star Wives
volunteered at Veterans Hospitals and Medical Centers 11,537 hours
valued at $59,416, drove more than 23,866 miles valued at $3,341, and
donated over $27,000 in cash and goods. We are currently members of the
National VAVS Committee.
The National Legislative Committee of The Gold Star Wives of
America is composed of volunteer members. The committee includes:
Rose Lee, Chairman, of Arlington, Virginia; widow of
U.S. Army Active-Duty death; Korean War, Vietnam War;
Margaret Murphy Peterson of Remsen, New York; widow of
a soldier killed in action (KIA); U.S. Army, Vietnam War;
Penny Splinter of Dubuque, Iowa; widow of KIA,
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF);
Edith Smith, of Springfield, Virginia; widow of
retired disabled marine, Vietnam War;
John Brennan, is our paid Washington Government
Relations Representative.
survivors' legislative highlights in 108th congress
Gold Star Wives worked closely with the Senate Committee on
Veterans' Affairs in the 108th Congress to pass legislation that has
improved military survivors' benefits. We have always found both
majority and the minority committee staff members to work in a bi-
partisan and collaborative manner. They have always responded promptly
to our requests for information, as well as meetings to discuss our
legislative concerns and priorities. Consequently, Gold Star Wives
would like to express our gratitude for their efforts in working to
improve survivors' benefits during the 108th Congress.
Specific survivors' legislative highlights in the 108th Congress
include:
The Veterans Improvement Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-352)
Increases survivors' DIC benefits by $250 per
month during the 2-year period following the death of a
veteran to further ease the transition of surviving
spouses with dependent children;
Allows a remarried spouse to be buried in a
national cemetery with his or her deceased veteran-
spouse and without permission from his or her
subsequent husband or wife;
Provides for a 10-year extension of delimiting
period for Survivors' and Dependents' Educational
Assistance (DEA) for spouses of Active-Duty deaths who
are now in their first 10-year period of eligibility;
The Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 (P.L.I08-183)
Includes a provision that permits surviving
spouses who remarry after attaining age 57 to retain
their VA survivors' benefits. Included in that law was
a provision that provides for a 1-year period to apply
for reinstatement that expired on December 15, 2004,
for those who remarried before the law was signed on
December 16, 2003. According to the VA, as of last
October, 5,794 survivors have applied for reinstatement
out of more than 32,000 eligible survivors.
Consequently, it does not appear that many were aware
of their eligibility to be reinstated. So, we would ask
that the law be amended to include those survivors over
age 55 as the original legislation requested and to
enable those survivors who may not be aware of the
legislation to become re-enrolled;
Increases the rate of monthly Survivors' and
DEA benefits for full time students from $695 to $788
for 45 months (the current full time student rate is
$803 per month);
Provides for the end of the offset of the SBP
payments by DIC payments for survivors who remarry
after the age of 57. However, the DOD is refusing to
recognize this law and is now seeking to recover
payments of the SBP benefits made to survivors who are
legally eligible to receive both payments. We would
request that the committee help us with this unfair
interpretation of the law.
current survivors' benefits monthly compensation
The VA's Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
DIC is monthly compensation of $993 paid as indemnity to
servicemember's surviving spouse. However, this amount is only 41
percent of the $2,429 paid monthly to the family of a veteran who is
100 percent disabled as a result of a service-connected injury.
Additionally, the DIC monthly payment of $993 is only 15 percent of the
$6,709 monthly payment paid to the catastrophically disabled veteran.
Consequently, upon the death of a veteran of a service-connected injury
who falls into either disability category, the veteran's family suffers
a substantial unanticipated monthly financial setback.
The DOD's Survivor Benefit Plan
SBP originally was a military retiree's purchased benefit plan that
assures a surviving spouse a monthly payment of 55 percent of the
monthly retirement check. It was expanded in the 108th Congress to
include all line-of-duty deaths without the requirement of 20 years of
Active-Duty service after September 10, 2001. However, with the SBP
reduced by DIC, practically all Active-Duty deaths result in the
survivor receiving only a DIC payment. After November 24, 2003, the OIF
survivors have the option to elect the child only SBP. In that case,
the SBP benefit is provided to the child without offset of DIC. A sad
consequence of the SBP child option is that the survivor who becomes
the primary provider for the family, is forced to forego their intended
survivor benefit and transfer it for a current income at the unjust
loss of a lifetime benefit intended for surviving spouses. No living
military retiree is forced to make this option at retirement. We
therefore suggest that survivor benefit options provided to the living
servicemember should be provided in a similar and equal manner to the
deceased member's family. If a divorced spouse is able to obtain SBP
benefits for herself as a divorce settlement without offset of any
other income, we ask why the survivor cannot be afforded this same
benefit as a consequence of their Active-Duty retired spouse's death?
It is extremely hard to understand, from our survivor's
perspective, why two wives of one retiree could possibly collect each
survivor benefit without offset. Children can collect each benefit
without offset, and their years of SBP payments would be longer than
the average 7 years a military survivor is expected to live and collect
SBP. Another sad result of the child option is that children who are
ages 18-23 and in school are paid directly rather than to the surviving
parent. Consequently, the survivor has no legal say over this money and
it is possible that this dependent child in college could have an
income of some $2,000 per month resulting in a loss of potential
scholarship and the unusual situation of an unearned income provided
directly to the surviving ``child.''
recommendations
Ending the SBP/DIC offset
A servicemember receiving or entitled to receive retirement pay may
participate in the SBP to ensure a survivor will have some income in
the event of their spouse's death. However, for those retired
servicemembers who die as a result of a service-connected disability
and therefore entitling their survivor to become eligible for DIC, the
survivor's SBP will then be offset dollar for dollar by their DIC.
This patently unfair offset currently affects approximately 52,000
survivors who are dually eligible for both SBP and DIC. While DIC is
non-taxable income and SBP is taxable, survivors of these disabled
retirees see little or no SBP funds despite having paid monthly
premiums equal to 6.5 percent of their retired pay; adding up to
thousands of dollars over the years. As a consolation for having made
these payments, the accumulated premiums are returned to them without
interest. This lump sum refund then becomes a taxable event for the
survivor. Unfortunately, there was very little tax advantage for the
disabled retiree when paying SBP premiums because his income was
predominately non-taxable. Consequently, there is no real advantage to
SBP for this group of survivors and, in fact, it becomes an unjust
survivor's burden. There is a great deal of resentment by some
survivors who see that the Federal Government is collecting taxes on
refunded SBP contributions for which they gained nothing financially.
The net effect of their monthly premium payments is that the retired
disabled veteran's survivor pays taxes for having given the Federal
Government a tax free loan.
There is no civilian employer that would be permitted to return
many years of survivorship premiums, without interest, should it choose
not to pay purchased benefits. Yet, under current law the survivors of
a military retiree are denied participation in a cost-sharing benefit
that was meant to protect them. Again, had the disabled servicemember
retired from Federal civil service, the survivor would be entitled to
both the civil service survivor benefit and DIC, with no offset.
Many SBP/DIC survivors have spent more than 20 years sacrificing
and supporting their spouse's military career and then years taking
care of them during their years of disability. Retired pay represents
deferred compensation for the 20 or more years of military service and
disability pay that is designed to compensate for a veteran's reduction
in quality of life and lost future earnings as a result of his
sacrifice for his country. Just as the disabled military retirees are
now entitled to both benefits, so should their survivors. Many
survivors are in their 50s or older and have not had the opportunity to
develop their own careers. The DIC attempts to indemnify them for the
loss of a spouse's life and an element of support for their future. The
SBP represents completely different income that they have paid for and
made a life of sacrifices for like multiple deployments, constant
anxiety about their spouse's well being, frequent moves, and no real
chance to invest in a pension of their own.
Better training for the Casualty Assistance Officers
We raise this issue as we have heard of many instances of problems
that the new survivors of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have
experienced. For most survivors, the death of their spouse is the most
catastrophic event of their lives. Many are literally in shock for many
months and are unable to cope with the financial decisions and
bureaucratic tangles that a survivor encounters. The CAOs are
unfortunately not now adequately trained, nor are any assigned to such
duty full time. Yet, they must try to help survivors go through the
maze of the VA and DOD benefits. CAOs cannot provide the kind of
counseling, both grief counseling and financial counseling necessary to
meet the needs of a military survivor. There currently is little
guidance for the CAOs. Without training or some DOD/VA/Social Security
(SS) integrated brochures, survivors are without proper counseling and
guidance at a critical time in their lives. All of the services should
have standardized guides.
A suggested solution to provide uniform and accurate information to
all survivors would be for DOD to contract with the Armed Forces
Services Corporation (AFSC). AFSC specializes in government survivor
benefits and is renowned for its expertise, outstanding service, and
its unique computer program that projects the family's future
integrated stream of government survivor benefits and changes that
occur to those amounts due to changing ages of the spouse and children.
They serve as a lifetime casualty assistance office keeping their
members informed of legislative changes that may affect the family's
survivor benefits and assist the surviving spouse in applying for those
benefits. AFSC assists the surviving spouse in dealing with the DOD,
VA, and the Social Security Administration (SSA).
Improved upfront information needed for survivors'
decisions
Survivors need to know upfront the following information:
-Upon remarriage survivors are subject to the following change in
benefits:
-Loss of their military ID card and consequent loss of base
privileges including Exchange and Commissary, morale, welfare, and
recreation (MWR), and military medical benefits;
-Their medical benefits can go from TRICARE to CHAMPVA.
-Military survivors who work for the Federal Government can be
barred from receiving their spouse's Social Security benefit;
-Those not enrolled in Medicare Part B are not eligible for
CHAMPVA. The waiver of penalties and interest assessed for late
enrollment has been fixed legislatively for TRICARE but not for
CHAMPVA. Gold Star Wives would like to respectfully suggest that the
plain language of Title 38, Section 1713 gives these CHAMPVA widows the
same or similar benefits as TRICARE survivors. We are told that about
60-100 disabled widows may be suffering a loss of medical care because
they were unaware of the mandated requirement to purchase Medicare Part
B as an additional condition to their eligibility for CHAMPVA. We ask
the committee to inquire as to the welfare of these widows.
The creation of a Survivors' Office within the VA
and/or the DOD
There currently is no central focus or location within either the
VA or DOD that a survivor or family member can go to with questions or
concerns about their benefits. The VA's regional offices are woefully
inadequate at providing information concerning survivors' benefits. DOD
likewise has no central location for the new survivor to turn to should
their CAO be without such information. There is virtually no
coordination between DOD and VA that survivors can count on.
Consequently, there is a need for a Survivors' Office that can carry
out these critical functions from a central location.
Future changes in survivors' benefits
There are several bills being introduced concerning proposed
changes to survivors' benefits, including an increase in the death
gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 and an increase in life insurance. We
strongly recommend that any changes made to survivors' benefits should
not differentiate between Active-Duty deaths and KIA deaths. Survivors
of servicemembers who die on Active-Duty have very similar experiences
and needs following their loss. Also, insurance proceeds should go to
the servicemember's surviving spouse and any children, rather to other
family members who may not be dependents.
biography of edith smith
Edith Smith is the widow of a disabled military retiree, Lt. Col.
Vincent M. Smith, USMC, Ret. He had the misfortune to suffer a
disabling heart condition in 1987, at age 48. Twenty-nine months later,
Vince was switched to Medicare and his earned military health benefit
of retirement, CHAMPUS was unexpectedly terminated simply because his
disabling condition met the strict requirements for a swift and
unchallenged Social Security disability determination. With the special
help of Senator John McCain, Arizona, and Congressman Bill Young,
Florida, Edith set out in 1991 to change the law with another wife
(residing in Florida) whose husband suffered a traumatic brain injury
at about age 50. Within 10 months, legislation restoring CHAMPUS as
second payer to Medicare was signed into law for about 100,000 retired
Medicare eligibles under age 65. A July 19, 1992, segment describing
the mission of Terry Cox and Edith to change the law ran on Tom
Brokaw's NBC ``Nightly News.'' Mr. Brokaw ended the segment with his
comment: ``Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned with a phone and a
fax!''
Edith has continued her role as a volunteer advocate for Disabled
Military Beneficiaries by serving as a member of the TRICARE
Beneficiary Working Task Force at Tricare Management Activity in Falls
Church, Virginia. In her volunteer capacity, she has prepared and
presented testimony more than 20 times since 1993 before various
congressional committees as a citizen advocate working to correct
unjust problems that surfaced with the implementation and integration
of the dual Medicare/CHAMPUS/TRICARE benefit for those under age 65.
Following her husband's death, Edith focused her efforts on changes to
the ``custodial care'' definition in order to provide medically
necessary care to children requiring skilled nursing delivered in the
home setting.
Edith continues to serve in a volunteer role as a resource on
disabled issues to the Government Relations Department of The National
Military Family Association and to The National Association for
Uniformed Services. In 1998, The National Military Family Association
honored Edith with their prestigious Margaret Vinson Hallgren Award for
her efforts on behalf of the disabled members of the military
community. She served in various positions on The Advisory Social
Services Board to Fairfax County Board of Supervisors for 7 years. She
became a member of Gold Star Wives of America shortly after her
husband's death and assists with their Washington legislative
activities.
A native Virginian, Edith graduated from Mary Washington College of
the University of Virginia in 1962 with a Bachelor of Science degree in
Home Economics Education. She was married to Vince Smith for 35 years,
staying at home to assist with his care during the years of his
disability. They have two children; Karen, her husband Chas, one son
Steve and two grandchildren.
disclosure statement
Neither Edith Smith nor the Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. have
received any Federal Grant or contract during the current or previous 2
fiscal years relative to the subject matter of this testimony.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, this marks our 27th year
that you and I have been together on this committee. Through
those years, I can say without any equivocation whatsoever, you
have been at the very forefront of all these personnel issues,
and you speak from the heart.
Senator Levin. You are our leader, Mr. Chairman, and we are
grateful for that.
Chairman Warner. I think there have been times when you
have been the leader of this committee. It seems to me it goes
back and forth.
Senator Levin. I am not going there, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. The chair also notes that Senator Frist,
the Majority Leader, has put in legislation, as well as Senator
Craig and Senator Akaka. On the Veterans Committee, you will be
having a hearing very shortly on this matter, will you not,
Senator Akaka?
Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
recognizing me.
I want to pay tribute, Mr. Chairman, to our military
members and their families serving our country presently.
I want to take this opportunity to welcome our panel here
and to thank you for your leadership to our country. Thank you
for coming today to provide us with information that we
consider very serious to our Nation with respect to benefits
and services available to the survivors of our military
personnel.
I want to say that this is very important to me, because I
serve as the ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee with my friend and leader and chairman, Larry Craig
from Idaho. I want you to know that we will also be holding a
hearing on this issue on Thursday, and we certainly look
forward to that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Akaka. The chair also
notes that you proudly served our Nation in World War II as a
member of the United States Army. We are proud to have you on
this committee.
Senators Kennedy and Clinton on this committee likewise,
Senator Levin, have been very active in this legislation, as I
had mentioned with Senator Frist, the Majority Leader, and we
also have Senator DeWine. You took a lead on legislation. The
committee would like to invite you to address the committee at
this time.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DeWINE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
OHIO
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me
thank you and Senator Levin for this hearing. Let me also
congratulate Senators Sessions, Lieberman, Allen, and Nelson
for your work.
I have had the experience I think, Mr. Chairman, that many
of us have had, the very sad experience, of meeting with and
seeing children of servicemen who have been killed in Iraq and
Afghanistan, some of them only 2, 4, and 6 years old. We have
also seen or read about situations where our young men have
left children they have never seen. We had that situation in
Ohio just this past week.
I think, Mr. Chairman, this causes us to wonder what will
become of these children financially. We know how sad it is to
lose a parent. We think about that. I think there is an
obligation that we all feel as a country to make sure that that
child is taken care of. So I would ask this committee, as you
begin to work on formulating legislation, to think about that.
The proposal that the Pentagon has put forward is good. I
welcome that. I congratulate the administration for that. But
quite frankly, I think it is lacking in a couple areas.
The current monthly payment for the child is $247. I think
that, if we look at the situation today with families, it is
inadequate. The bill that I have introduced would raise that to
$750. There is nothing magical about $750, but I think it is a
much more reasonable amount of money, and I would ask the
committee to take a look at that.
The second thing is education. You wonder about the
education for these children. Giving a death benefit and
increasing the death benefit today is interesting. That is
good. I think we should do that. But some of these children are
1 and 2 years old. 16 or 17 years from now, I worry about the
education for the child.
What the bill that Senator Durbin and I have introduced
would do is to raise the amount of money available per child
from $36,000 to $80,000. That is commensurate, frankly, with
about what it costs to go to a State university. Our bill also
would allow that money to be spent not only for tuition, but
also for room and board. That is a rational thing to do. It is
commensurate and consistent with what a parent would do if you
were providing for your child or trying to help your child. You
would not distinguish between room and board and tuition. You
would allow the money to be used for whatever it took that
child to go to college.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that is the least we can do for the
children of the service men and women who have given their
lives for our country.
I thank the chair.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
We have a quorum present and we have to comply with the
rules of the Senate. So I am going to ask your indulgence.
Senator Levin and I submit this jointly to our committee.
I ask the committee to consider a resolution for committee
funding for the 109th Congress and to adopt committee rules for
this Congress. Under the Senate rules, each committee is
required to report out a resolution at the beginning of each
Congress authorizing the committee to make expenditures of the
contingent fund of the Senate to defray its expenses, including
staff salaries and administrative expenses, for a 2-year
period.
The committee staff, majority and minority, has worked
together to prepare this resolution on the committee budget.
Senator Levin and I reviewed the budget and jointly recommend
it to the committee. The proposed budget is in line with the
funding guidelines provided by the Rules Committee and
consistent with the joint leadership agreement of January 6th,
2005. The budget represents a freeze at the committee's funding
level for the 108th Congress, increased only by cost-of-living
adjustments (COLAs).
Is there a motion to have this resolution reported out
favorably?
Senator Levin. So moved.
Chairman Warner. Is there a second?
Senator Lieberman. Second.
Chairman Warner. The motion is agreed to. All in favor, say
aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed? [No response.]
The ayes have it.
In addition, the committee must adopt its rules for the
109th Congress. Senator Levin and I reviewed the rules and
recommend only minor technical changes. The corrections are
before you.
Is there a motion to adopt the rules?
Senator Levin. So moved.
Chairman Warner. Is there a second?
Senator Lieberman. Second.
Chairman Warner. Hearing a second, all in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed? [No response.]
The ayes have it.
I thank the members, and this will appear in the record.
The record should also reflect that Senator Hagel has been
very active in this legislation likewise. He is a veteran of
the Vietnam conflict, a decorated veteran.
I think at this point in time, unless other members
indicate to the chair a need to speak, I would like to
recognize the witnesses. Dr. Chu, would you proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID S.C. CHU, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS
Dr. Chu. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin. I want
to thank you both, and I thank members of the committee for the
opportunity to appear this morning and to offer an overview of
how we treat those who are severely wounded in the current
conflict and the benefits available to those who give their
lives for our country.
Chairman Warner. Dr. Chu, I would like to also recognize
your long service to our Nation in your capacity in the DOD. I
understand that you may be rejoining your family from this long
absence in the near future. So we thank you.
Dr. Chu. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate it.
I want to thank you also, both you and Senator Levin, for
recognizing the contribution that the coalition forces have
made in the Middle East, with the opportunity they have given
Iraq for a first election in decades that was free and open and
gives the people of that country a real set of choices.
I am honored to be joined this morning by the Vice Chiefs
of the military departments and Mr. Epley from the Veterans'
Affairs Department.
I do have a statement for the record which I hope I can
submit.
Chairman Warner. Without objection, the statement of Dr.
Chu and other witnesses will be admitted to the record in full.
Dr. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to join in the sentiment that the members of
the committee have expressed, and the Department believes is
fundamental in how we view the issues before us this morning,
and that is, there is nothing in the financial sense that we
can do to replace a lost servicemember. We recognize that.
We recognize also for those severely wounded we cannot
necessarily, with financial means, compensate that individual
for the grievous wound that he or she has suffered. But we can
make their lives comfortable. We can give them the appropriate
financial tools with which to move forward, and that really is
the focus of my comments this morning.
As this committee is aware, we have transformed medical
care in this set of conflicts since September 11, 2001. We do
things very differently from the way we did before, starting
with how we protect our people, the widespread use of
lightweight body armor, the change in how we care for the
wounded, bringing them promptly back to an area, usually the
United States, where they can receive definitive care. We think
this has reduced the rate of death. We think it has also
allowed us to care more appropriately for the wounds that are
received, although I acknowledge the armor has changed the
nature of the wounds that are endured in this conflict. We are
proud of the fact that we have the lowest death and non-battle
injury rate in the recorded history of our country in any major
conflict in this ongoing set of operations.
We have, we believe, a good set of programs to take care of
those who are severely wounded. Each Service is moving to build
a case management capability, the marines expanding their
Marine for Life program, the Army with its Disabled Soldier
Support System (DS3). We are creating a joint operations center
to ensure that no one falls through the cracks, and that the
ability of the families to put together the various programs
available to them, if a servicemember is grievously wounded, is
properly sustained. That center will actually be formally
inaugurated today. If any members of the committee wish to be
present, I certainly would be delighted to invite you to join
us.
We will have a 1-888 number for the family members to call
if they feel they have questions that they have not yet been
able to ask. That number is 1-888-774-1361.
Let me turn, if I may, very briefly to the issue of death
benefits, which is the focus, I think, of most of the
discussion in your comments this morning. Congress, as Senator
Sessions has noted, has asked us to work with them over the
last 2 years, starting with the National Defense Authorization
Act of Fiscal Year 2004 which commissioned two studies, one by
the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and one independent
study the DOD was asked to inaugurate and that we invited the
SAG Corporation to complete. Those studies have been submitted
to you.
In your National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005, you requested that we should report, with the President's
budget, summarizing our conclusions from those studies and our
own work on this important subject. We are prepared to do so. I
would like to very briefly this morning summarize our major
findings.
First of all, as a number of members have noted, the United
States Government already provides a significant set of
programs to help the families of those who give their lives in
service to the country. We calculate that in the typical case
of a surviving spouse and young children, the income
replacement programs approximately substitute, dollar for
dollar, what the military member was earning on active service,
and by military compensation we mean what we call regular
military compensation. That is the sum of basic pay, quarters,
and subsistence allowances, and the tax advantages thereon. So
we have a good program, we would argue, of income support for a
family with young children which loses the servicemember.
The family is also eligible, as has been noted this
morning, for a variety of other benefits. We provide
transitional housing assistance. The family can stay in the
Government housing and receive an allowance for 6 months. We
provide access, on a lifetime basis really, for the surviving
spouse to the TRICARE system and for the children until they
reach adulthood. We also provide lifetime access to the spouse
to the commissary and exchange system. We do provide, as
Senator DeWine has noted already, through the VA, an important
educational benefit both for the spouse and for the surviving
children.
Where we conclude we need to strengthen what we are doing--
and that is the focus of the bill that Senator Sessions has
introduced, is what you might call a bequest, the single cash
payment that comes to the family upon the servicemember's
death. That currently is just over $260,000: That is to say,
the sum of the SGLI payment of $250,000 and what people call
the death gratuity, currently set at $12,420. We believe that
sum ought to be nearer to $500,000, and we propose to change
that by increasing the amount covered by the SGLI policy, as
well as increasing what people like to call the death gratuity.
I might say, as an aside, that I hope we can work with the
committee to find a different term for what is now called the
death gratuity. That really, I think, is a bit of an
anachronism in terms of terminology. It is not really
indicative, as I listened to the comments this morning and
elsewhere, of what the country wants to do. The country wants
to recognize the service of these individuals and express its
condolences for the loss of the servicemember.
We look forward to working with the members of this
committee, as we have already done, as Senator Sessions
indicated, over the last year-plus or so, in terms of providing
to our service people and their surviving families what they
deserve in the difficult circumstances they face today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Chu follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. David S.C. Chu
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, thank you
for the opportunity to be here today. It is my privilege to discuss the
means by which we care for the severely wounded, as well as the
surviving families of deceased military personnel.
Support to the Severely Wounded:
Each of the Services has initiated an effort to ensure that our
seriously wounded servicemembers are not forgotten--medically,
administratively, or in any other way. To facilitate a coordinated
response, the Department of Defense (DOD) has established a Joint
Support Operations Center (JSOC). We are collaborating, not only with
the military Services, but also with other departments of the Federal
Government, nonprofit organizations, and corporate America, to assist
these deserving men and women and their families.
A number of our severely injured servicemembers will be able to
return to duty, thanks to their dedication and commitment, and the
phenomenal quality of military medicine. Some, however, will transition
from the military and return to their hometowns or become new members
of another civilian community. These are capable, competent, goal-
oriented men and women--the best of our Nation. We will ensure that
during their rehabilitation we provide a ``case management'' approach
to advocating for the servicemember and his or her family. From the
Joint Support Operations Center here, near the seat of government, to
their communities across America, we will be with them. This will
continue through their transition to the Department of Veterans'
Affairs (VA), and the many other agencies and organizations providing
support to them.
I have mentioned that the JSOC is a collaborative effort, both
inside and outside the government. I recognize and appreciate the
interest and express desire of Congress to help ensure the success of
this effort. As we identify the need for statutory changes, we will be
certain to make you aware and seek your assistance.
Twenty-four hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, we are a
toll-free phone call away. We will provide a venue for each of the
separate programs to be successful, while ensuring that no one falls
through a crack. The center will be a one-stop location, providing a
central point of contact for information and support.
preventing injuries
The DOD actively pursues all methods to prevent our military
members from bodily harm. As technology has dramatically advanced from
previous wars, the military has increased its lethality, but our
equipment is safer, and our warfighter is more highly skilled.
With your support, we strive to provide the best military equipment
in the world and ensure that it is safe to operate. For example, we
believe that body armor, helmets, and protective vests, are reducing
both hostile and accidental serious injuries. This is supported by
preliminary analysis, which indicates that most injuries are to the
body extremities, arms and legs, with less severe injuries to the head
and torso areas.
Secretary Rumsfeld's initiative to change how the DOD views the
safety of its military personnel and civilian employees also has made
an impact. Our goal is zero preventable mishaps. We have taken a major
step in that direction. We are succeeding in Operation Iraqi Freedom
(OIF). Historically, about half of the Army's wartime losses were due
to accidents; in OIF, about 26 percent of the losses result from
preventable mishaps.
When injuries do occur, far-forward medical and surgical
resuscitation, en route critical care support, and rapid evacuation to
definitive care have significantly reduced combat-related deaths. This
is very evident in OIF as we have a ratio of only one battle death for
every ten wounded in action, compared to ratios for previous wars that
ran typically around 1 to 3. With improved treatment we are also seeing
48 percent of the wounded in Iraq return to their units within 72
hours.
Similarly, our military health system has made significant advances
in the prevention of injury and disease. These include public health
measures, immunization of servicemembers, use of early detection
techniques against biochemical agents, and pre- and post-deployment
assessments. These have been particularly beneficial in prevention and
early detection and treatment of disease and non-battle injuries.
Consequently, disease/non-battle injury rates have been lower than in
any other conflict.
death benefits
We realize first that no benefits can replace a human life. The
lost presence of the family member is what the survivors face. We can't
provide that, nevertheless, we must try to address the difficult issue
of how to compensate these survivors. Permit me to offer you an
overview of what we do in response to the loss of a military member,
including personal assistance, as well as cash benefits.
Our system of benefits is generally good, but our recent
assessment, in response to your direction, concluded that the overall
package could be improved to honor properly the contributions and
sacrifices of our servicemembers. We are working within the DOD and
with other agencies to address these deficiencies, primarily in the
area of immediate cash compensation, for those whose death is the
result of hostile actions. We are looking at ways to improve the lump
sum payments through increased insurance and death gratuity payments. I
will address these in more detail later.
military casualty assistance
When a military member dies, our first concern is to inform the
next-of-kin in a manner that is fast, efficient, and highly respectful.
Our military casualty assistance program is highly developed and well
suited to perform this difficult task effectively. Notification is made
in person by Casualty Assistance Officers (CAOs) who are customarily
accompanied by a chaplain.
CAOs personnel stay with the family following notification of the
loss, through funeral preparations, burial, and the entire process of
determining benefits and compensation. They provide valuable counsel
and support to the families, arranging for the military funeral (if
desired), running interference when problems arise, and ensuring that
the families receive the benefits and compensation due them. The
families know that they can contact their Casualty Assistance Office
representative at any time, even long after the servicemember's death.
We are proud of our Casualty Assistance program. We often hear from the
families that they consider their Casualty Assistance Office
representative ``part of the family.''
The DOD continuously explores how it can better support our family
members during the most tragic of times, the loss of a loved one in the
service to our Nation.
One such initiative is the expedited claims process (ECP) with the
Social Security Administration (SSA). In March 2003, we partnered with
the SSA to study the possibility of institutionalizing the ECP that was
so effective in the tragic aftermath of September 11, 2001. The ECP
incorporates post-adjudicative development of evidence, as well as the
use of a special toll free number for applicants and CAOs to call when
they are ready to file. This process has been extremely successful in
providing swift financial assistance to our families. The final results
of the pilot program showed the average claims processing time dropped
from several weeks to an average of just over 2 days time. Accordingly,
the ECP was made permanent in January 2004 for surviving family members
of all Active-Duty casualties. We established a similar arrangement
with the VA several years ago. That program has also significantly
expedited the delivery of compensation and benefits to our families.
benefits for survivors
Benefits for survivors vary significantly in purpose and method of
payment. Some are immediate cash payments or reimbursements for costs
incurred; others provide long-term monthly income. These benefits are
typically available whether the death is a result of hostilities, the
result of non-hostile duty-related activities, or even the result of
disease or off-duty injuries.
Death Gratuity Benefit
The first benefit is to provide an infusion of cash to alleviate
immediate financial requirements. This is accomplished by the death
gratuity payment (currently $12,420, indexed to inflation). Our intent
is to provide this payment in conjunction with the notification of
death or as quickly thereafter as possible. This is done at the local
level and normally takes place within 24 hours.
Funeral Costs
One of the first expenses survivors encounter is for the funeral.
DOD will reimburse some or all such expenses the family pays directly.
The amount payable varies depending which government services are
provided. If the family pays all costs, it qualifies for up to $6,900
in reimbursements for these services.
Insurance Proceeds
After the funeral, the most substantial benefit is the life
insurance proceeds from personal policies as well as from
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI). This is our principal
insurance program and is under the purview of the VA, operated by the
Office of Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (OSGLI), an arm of
Prudential. SGLI provides up to $250,000 of coverage for modest
premiums paid by the member. The DOD pays any costs associated with an
increased number of deaths attributable to the extra hazards of
military service compared to the number of deaths expected in
peacetime.
Housing-in-kind or Cash Allowance
A surviving family may continue to live in military housing without
cost for up to 6 months after the member's death. This enables the
member's family to reorient their lives without undue pressure to
relocate immediately. They are able to make choices about the future in
an orderly manner. Should the family not occupy military housing or
move out of military quarters before the end of those 6 months, they
receive a cash allowance in lieu of quarters. In essence, we provide 6
months of transitional rent.
Medical Benefits
Surviving family members continue to qualify for military medical
benefits. For the first 3 years, health benefits remain at the same
level of care as if the member were still on Active-Duty. Family
members are then provided medical coverage at the same level as for the
families of retired members. Children remain qualified until age 23,
and spouses so long as they do not remarry.
Continued Military Community Privileges
Surviving family members continue to be eligible for use of the
Commissary and Exchange, and military morale, welfare, and recreation
facilities. These privileges continue under the same qualifying
criteria that otherwise apply if the member were retired.
Monthly Cash Compensation
The surviving family typically qualifies for one or more monthly
cash benefits under plans administered by the DOD, the VA, and the SSA.
Taken together, the surviving spouse with minor children will typically
qualify for monthly benefits that are equal to or even exceed the
former income of the member. These payments are reduced in the event of
remarriage before a certain age. Although Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)
payments from DOD are taxable as income, little or any tax will apply
if the payments are made to the children. The VA Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefit is not taxable. Social Security
payments can be taxable depending on the other income, but would
probably be minimal for a survivor with little or no other income.
Thus, the income provided the surviving family would carry little or no
tax liability.
VA Monthly DIC
DIC is provided by the VA to the surviving spouse with additional
payments for children. For a spouse and two children, this benefit is
$993 monthly plus $247 per child (plus if there are children under age
18, $250/month for 2 years). This equates to $20,844 of tax-free income
annually for the first 2 years, and $17,844 thereafter so long as the
children are not of age (the benefit for a spouse alone is $11,916
annually for life or until remarriage if before age 57). The DIC is
fixed for all veterans regardless of rank in service.
DOD Survivor Benefit Plan
The family also qualifies for a monthly payment from DOD equal to
55 percent of the retired pay the member would have received if he or
she had retired for total disability on the date of death. This retired
pay is computed as 75 percent of the member's average basic pay over
the last 3 years. If the spouse alone qualifies for this benefit, the
DIC is subtracted from the SBP. However, it may be paid instead to the
children and the benefits are then additive for as long as the youngest
child qualifies (about age 22).
Social Security Survivor Benefit
Military members participate in social security on their basic pay
and thus qualify for the same benefits as any other covered worker.
This means monthly payments for children as well as to the surviving
spouse with young children (up to age 16). These benefits depend on the
history of covered wages under the Social Security program.
The table below summarizes these income benefits for married O-3s
and E-6s with two children as well as a married E-6 with no children,
and a single E-6. For a married E-6 with two children (8 years of
service), the total of these three programs pays more than 110 percent
of the member's final rate of Regular Military Compensation (RMC). For
a married O-3 with children, the total equates to 96 percent of RMC. In
both cases, much of the income is tax free. Thus, the family's after
tax income could actually be higher than RMC.
Education Benefits from the VA
Education benefits from the VA are quite valuable and are available
to both the spouse and the children. These benefits are payable for up
to 45 months of education time and can easily exceed $100,000 for a
spouse and two children.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Financial Counseling
A final, but important benefit is the financial counseling
available to survivors. There are many associations that provide such
benefits, some of them chartered for special status by Congress, for
example, the Mutual Aid Associations. Each has programs that help
members and survivors understand their benefits. Anyone who receives
proceeds under the SGLI program qualifies to receive continuing
financial counseling service through a program set up by the VA. The
Beneficiary Financial Counseling Service (BFCS) provides a highly
valuable benefit for survivors. This program provides a comprehensive
assessment of the lifetime financial plan of beneficiaries, including a
full presentation of the benefits described in this paper.
We are currently in the process of testing a Servicemembers Benefit
Analysis program through an Army pilot. We are also developing simple
spreadsheet tools to help describe available benefits for service
personnel. We expect to see rapid improvement in our capability to
deliver financial counseling over the next several months.
adequacy of benefits
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
included a requirement for us to study the totality of all current and
projected death benefits for survivors of deceased members of the Armed
Forces. The study was to include a comparison of military with other
Federal death benefits as well as with commercial and other private
sector death benefit plans. The GAO was to conduct a similar study.
To ensure an independent review, we contracted for the study with
the SAG Corporation. SAG completed the study in June 2004. The study
concluded that the system of benefits provided to survivors of members
who die on Active-Duty to be adequate, substantial and comprehensive.
However, it identified areas where improvements could make the benefits
more comparable to benefits provided by other employers. For example,
many large employers provide some insurance at no cost. The rationale
of providing Federal benefits in recognition of deaths in the
performance of duty of law-enforcement officers and firefighters, would
seem to apply as well to military members.
GAO's report, dated July 2004, ``Survivor Benefits for
Servicemembers and Federal, State, and City Government Employees'' made
no recommendations, but reached findings similar to the SAG report. GAO
found servicemembers almost always obtain higher lump sums than do the
survivors of 61 civilian government entities, but the survivors of
civilian government employees in some high-risk occupations may receive
supplemental benefits. These supplemental payments generally result in
higher benefits to employees in these high-risk occupations than for
servicemembers.
As you can see from the foregoing, the benefits provided are
substantial. They come from a wide variety of programs and address a
variety of concerns. They provide significant continuing income and are
of great help to survivors in making their transition through the
changes in life that inevitably follow a member's death. A surviving
spouse with young children has the potential to receive more than $2
million over her or his remaining lifetime.
We agree with the findings of the SAG and GAO reports that our
benefits, while substantial, do not provide specific recognition of
deaths that occur when our members are sent into harms' way in the
service of their Nation; so we propose increasing the cash benefits for
deaths that occur under these circumstances. We support the principle
that the surviving family of a member killed in combat should receive
about $500,000. This compares to the approximately $262,000 they are
able to receive today. We advocate doing this by: (1) Increasing the
maximum SGLI to $400,000 with $150,000 of insurance funded by the
Government when the member is serving in an operation or area
designated by the Secretary of Defense; (2) Increasing the current
$12,420 death gratuity to $100,000 for deaths occurring in these same
designated areas; and (3) Applying these improvements retroactively to
the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and OIF. We intend to
fund these enhancements within planned appropriations or budgeted
levels.
These improvements I have outlined in benefits are an outgrowth of
the conclusions in both the SAG and the GAO reports that I discussed
above. We have drafted language to make these improvement and are eager
to move this legislation forward. Our bill, while not identical, is
broadly consistent with other bills already introduced in the 109th
Congress, such as the HEROES Act of 2005.
Our objective is to ensure that we fully support our servicemembers
when we send them in harm's way, and that we properly support the
family's needs if the servicemember dies on Active-Duty.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Dr. Chu. I think that
is an important aside you had. We will study that issue and I
share the thoughts and will work with you.
My understanding is that Deputy Secretary of Defense
Wolfowitz worked actively with you, Senator Sessions, as this
legislation was drawn up. Am I correct in that?
Senator Sessions. That is correct. We have gotten good
support and worked through a lot of different suggestions. We
still have some good suggestions we will wrestle with and maybe
this morning we will ask some questions about them.
Chairman Warner. I personally have worked with Secretary
Rumsfeld on this issue, and I commend him for his leadership in
suggesting to the administration to get out very promptly on
this issue.
Dr. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Mr. Epley, we welcome you from the Department of Veterans'
Affairs. You have the title of Associate Deputy Under Secretary
for Policy and Program Management, Veterans' Affairs Benefits
Administration. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. EPLEY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
FOR POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Mr. Epley. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on this important issue. Providing
benefits to survivors of our military veterans is one of our
core responsibilities at the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
My written testimony describes the benefits provided by VA in
detail, so I will try to summarize that this morning.
The VA administers a program already alluded to today
called DIC. This program pays a monthly benefit to the
surviving spouse and dependent children of a veteran who died
in service or as the result of a service-related disability.
Currently we are paying DIC to the survivors of more than
318,000 of our veterans. Generally the monthly pay for
surviving spouses is $993 per month plus $247 for each child.
If the only beneficiary were a child, if there were no
surviving spouse, the pay rate would be $421 for that child.
Chairman Warner. You might mention the tax consequences
also.
Mr. Epley. These benefits are not taxable.
Chairman Warner. That is important to include that in the
record.
Mr. Epley. Death pension benefits are also available for
surviving spouses and unmarried minor children of deceased
veterans with wartime service. Eligibility is based on
financial need and is not payable to those with estates large
enough to provide maintenance.
The current annual rate for a death pension for a surviving
spouse with no dependents and no income is $6,814. We are
currently paying death pension benefits to the survivors of
over 212,000 veterans.
The VA provides casualty assistance in partnership with the
DOD for survivors of servicemembers who die while on Active-
Duty. VA has outlined specific outreach requirements to include
coordination with the DOD, personal visits with the survivors,
and assistance with their benefit claims. We have CAOs at each
of our regional offices around the country, and they are
responsible for maintaining close contact with their military
counterparts and to do the outreach as timely as possible.
In 2002, the VA centralized all of its in-service death
claims processing. This was done to improve our coordination
and to expedite the process of paying those benefit claims. Our
goal is to process these claims within 2 days of receipt at the
VA. We are meeting that goal for many of our claims now.
Sometimes it takes us a little longer if there are complicating
factors.
Education is also an important benefit for our survivors,
as was mentioned earlier. The VA administers educational
benefits for spouses and children of veterans who died or are
permanently and totally disabled as a result of a disability
arising from military service. The education benefit is $803
monthly for full-time training and is graduated down based on
lesser rates of training. We paid benefits for over 68,000
beneficiaries last year and most of them were pursuing college
undergraduate training, although we do pay for other vocational
training.
The SGLI has been mentioned extensively already today. It
is a key component of our survivors' benefits package. SGLI
provides low-cost term insurance protection to servicemembers
through a group policy that is issued by the Prudential Life
Insurance Company. When SGLI was first established in 1965, the
maximum coverage was $10,000. There have been seven coverage
increases since that program's inception, resulting in the
current maximum coverage of $250,000. The participation rate
for SGLI is 98 percent for Active-Duty members in 2004 and 93
percent for those in the Ready Reserve.
Beneficiary financial counseling services are also
available through the VA Insurance Program. This is one-on-one,
free, and objective counseling for SGLI beneficiaries provided
by ComPsych, a vendor under contract with Prudential to help
them handle the expenses and plan that expense.
There have been numerous improvements to the VA benefit
package in the last few years. DIC eligibility requirements
have been enhanced for surviving spouses of ex-prisoners of war
(POW) and for those who remarry after the age of 57. Education
payments have been significantly increased in recent years, and
surviving spouses of an individual who died on Active-Duty now
have 20 years to use the benefit instead of 10 years, which it
was previously. Life insurance has been extended to spouses of
members covered under SGLI and, as of 2001, up to $100,000 of
coverage can be purchased for these spouses.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, a surviving spouse of a deceased
veteran may be entitled through the VA only--there are other
benefits sir--to DIC benefits of $993 a month, education
benefits of $803 a month, a home loan guarantee in place of the
veteran, and an insurance benefit of $250,000 and possibly
other benefits as well.
The VA welcomes review and enhancement of these benefits to
ensure the fair and compassionate care for survivors of our
veterans, and we welcome the opportunity to work with the DOD
and with this committee. I will be happy to answer any
questions the committee has.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Epley follows:]
Prepared Statement by Robert J. Epley
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on this important issue. Providing
benefits for survivors of our military veterans is one of our core
responsibilities at the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA).
VA provides a wide range of benefits for the surviving spouses,
dependent children, and dependent parents of deceased veterans and
military servicemembers. My testimony will summarize the benefits we
provide, some of the recent changes to those benefits, and the scope of
our payment systems. It should be noted that these are not the only
death benefits a surviving spouse and children are entitled to. They
are also entitled to an array of Defense and Social Security benefits
that both complement and in some cases offset each other. As we examine
the adequacy of these benefits, we must do so in a holistic manner.
compensation and pension
One of our largest survivor programs, Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (DIC), is administered by the Compensation & Pension
Service (C&P). The program pays a monthly benefit to the surviving
spouse, dependent children, and dependent parents of a veteran who died
in service or as the result of a service-related disability. Currently
there are 318,574 cases on the C&P rolls. (A case may include more than
one beneficiary, such as a spouse and minor children). DIC may also be
paid when a veteran was receiving or entitled to receive VA disability
compensation at the total (100 percent) disability rate for one or more
service-connected disabilities for at least 10 years immediately before
death, or for at least 5 years and continuously from the date of
military discharge. Entitlement on this basis may be established
regardless of the cause of death.
Recent legislation relating to spouses of former prisoners of war
(POWs) reduced the time required for the veteran to be evaluated as
totally disabled. DIC is now payable to the surviving spouse of a
former POW who died after September 30, 1999, and was rated totally
disabled due to service-connected conditions for a period of at least 1
year immediately preceding death. Entitlement on this basis may also be
established regardless of the cause of death.
Surviving spouses of veterans who died on or after January 1, 1993,
receive $993 a month. For a spouse entitled to DIC based on the
veteran's death prior to January 1, 1993, the amount paid is the
greater of $993 or an amount based on the veteran's pay grade. In 2001,
VA completed a DIC Program Evaluation which recommended an increase in
benefits for survivors with children. As a result, Congress enacted
legislation last session that provides for a transitional benefit of
$250 per month payable to a surviving spouse who has a minor child or
children. It is payable for up to 2 years after DIC entitlement
commences.
A surviving spouse who loses entitlement to DIC upon remarriage may
have eligibility restored if the remarriage later ends in death,
divorce, or annulment. Under Public Law 108-183, widows entitled to DIC
may now retain eligibility to receive that benefit if they remarry
following attainment of age 57.
Monthly DIC payments for parents of deceased veterans depend on
their income. The maximum rate payable is $487 per month for a sole
surviving, unremarried parent or a remarried parent living with spouse,
and with income of not more than $800 per month.
Surviving spouses and unmarried children of deceased veterans with
wartime service who do not qualify for DIC may be eligible for death
pension benefits. Eligibility is based on financial need and is not
payable to those with estates large enough to provide maintenance. The
veteran must have been discharged under conditions other than
dishonorable and must have had 90 days or more of active military
service, at least 1 day of which was during a period of war, or have
been discharged for a service-connected disability and had active
military service during a period of war. If the veteran died in service
but not in the line-of-duty, pension may be payable if the veteran had
completed at least 2 years of honorable service.
C&P death pension cases total 212,551 as of December 2004. (A case
may include more than one beneficiary, such as a spouse and minor
children). The current annual rate of death pension for a surviving
spouse with no dependents and no income is $6,814. Additional benefits
may be available if the surviving spouse is in a nursing home, in need
or regular aid and attendance, or permanently housebound. The maximum
annual rate for a surviving child who is not in the custody of a
surviving spouse who is eligible for death pension is $1,734. Payments
are reduced by the amount of recipients' annual income from other
sources, such as Social Security.
casualty assistance program
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and with the
start of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), a VA/Department of Defense
(DOD) Casualty Assistance Task Group was brought together to discuss
procedures for managing mass casualties and ways to improve processing
of all in-service death claims. As a result, a Casualty Assistance
Program was revitalized and streamlined to focus on assistance to
survivors of servicemembers who die while on Active-Duty.
This program has worked effectively to streamline both the DIC
application and claims-adjudication processes for survivors of
servicemembers who die on Active-Duty. In addition, VA has outlined
specific outreach requirements, to include personal visits with
survivors. In 2002, all in-service death DIC claims were centralized to
the Philadelphia Regional Office for processing. VBA casualty
assistance officers (CAOs) were assigned to each regional office to
work closely with military CAOs, and visit survivors to provide
benefits information and assistance.
education
Education is also an important benefit for survivors. Surviving
spouses and children can gain eligibility to educational assistance
based on the servicemember's death or, following Active-Duty, his or
her permanent and total service-connected disability. Last year, VA
paid educational assistance to 53,007 dependents of seriously disabled
veterans and 15,913 survivors.
Dependents' Education Assistance (DEA) benefits are available to
spouses who have not remarried and children of: (1) individuals who
died on Active-Duty or are permanently and totally disabled as the
result of a disability arising from active military service; (2)
veterans who died from any cause while rated permanently and totally
disabled from service-connected disability; (3) servicemembers listed
for more than 90 days as currently missing in action or captured in
line-of-duty by a hostile force; (4) servicemembers listed for more
than 90 days as currently detained or interned by a foreign government
or power.
The termination of a surviving spouse's remarriage, either by death
or divorce, will reinstate DEA benefits to the surviving spouse.
Additionally, Public Law 108-183 permits surviving spouses entitled to
DEA benefits to retain those benefits if they remarry after age 57.
Benefits may be awarded for pursuit of associate, bachelor, or
graduate degrees at colleges and universities, including independent
study, cooperative training, and study abroad programs. Courses leading
to a certificate or diploma from business, technical or vocational
schools also may be taken. Benefits may also be awarded for
apprenticeships, on-the-job training programs, and farm cooperative
courses.
Today's monthly rate is $803 for full-time pursuit of an approved
education or training program, with lesser amounts for part-time
training. This benefit is available for 45 months of full time
training, and payments to a spouse end 10 years from the date the
individual is found eligible or from the date of the death of the
veteran.
Recent legislation granted an extension in eligibility to the
surviving spouse of an individual who died while on Active-Duty. They
now have 20 years to use the benefit.
VA will also pay a special Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) death benefit
to a designated survivor in the event of the service-connected death of
an individual while on Active-Duty or within 1 year after discharge or
release. The deceased must either have been entitled to educational
assistance under the MGIB program or a participant in the program who
would have been so entitled but for the high school diploma or length-
of-service requirement. The amount paid will be equal to the
participant's actual military pay reduction, less any education
benefits paid.
insurance
The Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program, first
established in 1965, provides automatic low-cost term insurance
protection to servicemembers through a group policy purchased by VA
from Prudential Life Insurance Company of America. The Government pays
the claim costs resulting from the extra hazards of service. All other
costs of the program are covered by premiums deducted from the insured
servicemember's pay.
When SGLI was first established, the maximum amount of coverage
available was set at $10,000. There have been seven coverage increases
since the program's inception. Recent increases include a coverage
increase in 1996 when the maximum coverage available was raised from
$100,000 to $200,000, and then again in 2001, when coverage was
increased to the current maximum of $250,000.
Unless they decline to participate, basic SGLI coverage is
automatically provided to those members on Active-Duty in the Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, as well as Reserve
Officers Training Corps (ROTC) members, and uniformed members of the
Public Health Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. The Ready Reserve is also insured by SGLI, including
reservists and members of the National Guard. The participation rate at
the end of the 2004 Policy Year was 98 percent for Active-Duty
(including reservists called to Active-Duty) and 93 percent for the
Ready Reserve.
As of January 2005, the Office of Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance (OSGLI) has issued over 1,900 payments to beneficiaries as a
result of 1,512 deaths certified by the branches of service in OEF and
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Only ten of these members had declined
SGLI coverage. Of the remaining members, 31 had opted for coverage
amounts less than the maximum of $250,000. Claims paid to survivors of
OIF/OEF servicemembers total over $341,857,000.
The Veterans' Survivors Benefits Improvement Act of 2001 extended
life insurance coverage to spouses and children of members insured
under the SGLI program, effective November 1, 2001. Spousal coverage is
available to the spouses of Active-Duty servicemembers and members of
the Ready Reserve of a uniformed service. Up to $100,000 of coverage
can be purchased by the member for a spouse, in increments of $10,000.
SGLI spousal coverage may not be greater than the amount of the
servicemember's coverage. The maximum coverage for a child is $10,000.
In the case where a servicemember is married to another
servicemember, the potential survivor benefit for this group of
individuals is $350,000--$250,000 Basic SGLI coverage plus $100,000
Family SGLI spousal coverage. It is estimated that there are currently
84,000 such married personnel currently serving on Active-Duty.
Beneficiary Financial Counseling Services (BFCS) is one-on-one,
free, objective financial counseling for SGLI beneficiaries provided by
ComPsych, a vendor under contract with Prudential. Services include
estate settlement and planning, investment planning, budgeting, and
income tax planning. BFCS was started as a pilot project in 1999, and
has now been adopted as a permanent feature of the SGLI program of
benefits. Over 190 beneficiaries have taken advantage of this service
since its inception.
burial benefits
To the extent that the DOD benefits would not cover the full amount
of funeral expenses, VA is authorized to pay up to $2,000 to cover
burial and funeral expenses in cases of service-connected deaths. In
addition, VA provides burial in national cemeteries and also provides
burial flags and markers for the graves of deceased servicemembers.
other benefits
In addition to the benefits described above, VA offers a range of
additional benefits to survivors, including home loan guaranties, the
Restored Entitlement Program, and educational or vocational counseling
services.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, in summary, a surviving spouse of a deceased veteran
may be entitled to basic DIC benefits of $993 per month, educational
benefits of $803 per month, home loan guaranty, and an insurance
benefit of $250,000.
As you can see, VA provides a substantial array of benefits to care
for the survivors of servicemembers and veterans. We continue to strive
toward enhanced benefits for veterans and their survivors to fulfill
our mission of world class service. This completes my statement, and I
will be happy to answer any questions you and other members of the
committee might have.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
For those following the hearing who might not fully
understand, the very important matters relating to men and
women of the Armed Forces on Active-Duty and then when they go
on into their next status following Active-Duty are really
divided between the DOD where we have jurisdiction over the
death benefit and the Veterans Benefits Administration where
you have jurisdiction over other benefits. So it is a composite
of two Departments of the Federal Government working together
on behalf of the service persons and the veterans and their
families. I think you, Dr. Chu, together with Mr. Epley, have
properly framed how that responsibility is divided.
We will now turn to our distinguished military witnesses.
Senator McCain, Senator Levin, others, and I, as we put
together this hearing, felt it very important that, first and
foremost, the military Departments be heard through the Vice
Chiefs because, having had the privilege of serving the
Department myself many years ago, I know full well the burdens
on the Vice Chiefs and the personnel issues. While shared
indeed by the Chief, often the details are left to the Vice
Chiefs.
So we will turn first to the distinguished General Cody of
the senior service of the United States Army. I know, General,
from our talks you have, I think, two sons who currently have
either been in Iraq or out of Iraq or both, proudly serving in
the United States Army. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GEN RICHARD A. CODY, USA, VICE CHIEF OF STAFF,
UNITED STATES ARMY
General Cody. Thank you, Chairman Warner, Senator Levin,
and distinguished members of this Senate Armed Services
Committee.
We are a Nation at war. You recognize it, and our soldiers
know you are behind them. I thank the members of this committee
for their continued outstanding support to the men and women in
uniform who make up our great Army, Active, Guard, and Reserve.
Your concern, resolute action, and deep commitment to America's
sons and daughters are widely recognized throughout the rank
and file of our Service.
The Army is always willing to address ways to better
support our soldiers and family members, especially after a
loss of a soldier who was actively serving this Nation. We are
very encouraged by the recent interest in raising the death
gratuity and SGLI for our soldiers, and we fully support these
efforts to improve compensation to the families of our fallen
soldiers. Furthermore, we believe these increases should be
retroactive.
Caring for survivors is a manifestation of the Army ethos
to never leave a fallen comrade. The benefits and compensation
due to survivors only begin with a nontaxable death gratuity,
but even while there are many other forms of compensation that
we have heard of today, there is still more I believe we can
do. Clearly, there are voids in the system, and we are grateful
to this committee for leading the effort to fill these gaps for
our soldier survivors.
Everything we do to support survivors would not be possible
without this committee's steadfast dedication to the military
and to America's sons and daughters who are serving selflessly
around the world to make America safe and free today. Every
soldier's life is priceless. No benefit can replace those we
have lost in the defense of this country. We owe it to our
soldiers who raised their right hand and said, ``America, in
your time of need, send me,'' to make sure we get this right.
Thank you again for your continued support, and I look for
the opportunity to answer all your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Cody follows:]
Prepared Statement by GEN Richard A. Cody, USA
Chairman Warner, Senator Levin and distinguished members of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, I would like to express our
appreciation at the opportunity to appear before you to discuss soldier
death gratuity and survivor benefits. I thank the members of the
committee for their continued outstanding support to the men and women
in uniform, who make up our great Army. Your concern, resolute action,
and deep commitment to America's sons and daughters are widely
recognized throughout the ranks of our Service.
Today, our over 1 million strong All-Volunteer Army is supporting
the National Security Strategy with 650,000 soldiers from all
components on Active-Duty. Over 300,000 of those soldiers are mobilized
or deployed in 120 countries worldwide with many engaged in direct
combat as we fight the war on terrorism. Increased injury and death of
soldiers is an unfortunate consequence of this war.
Advanced technology and training has enabled us to improve both the
protective equipment we provide to soldiers and the medical care
available when the soldier is wounded. Body armor protecting the
soldier's torsos is helping prevent many deaths. In previous conflicts,
soldiers who would have died from massive injury to their torsos are
now surviving, although many have severe wounds to their arms and legs.
The current expertise of our combat medics supported by resuscitative
surgical care available in forward surgical teams and combat support
hospitals enable soldiers to survive these wounds. Unfortunately, many
of these wounds have resulted in amputations.
Some of these soldiers, when they desire, are able to remain on
Active-Duty and continue to once again contribute through their
outstanding service. Sergeant First Class Luis Rodriguez, while serving
in the 101st Airborne Division as a medical platoon sergeant in Iraq,
lost most of his right leg. Today, he is making a difference by
instructing combat life saving at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Captain
David Rozelle, from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, after losing the
lower part of his right leg, has completed the Army 10-Miler and the
New York City Marathon, and is back in command of his second troop unit
that is going into combat with this next rotation. But not all soldiers
are as fortunate as these two men, and the Army is determined to
provide our disabled soldiers and families the care, support and
assistance they so rightly deserve for their selfless service and
sacrifice to our Nation.
Walter Reed Army Medical Center established the Army Amputee Care
Program in 2001 to apply revolutionary advances in medical care and
technology to the military's amputee care protocols. Through the
innovative spirit of Army health care providers and through generous
support of Congress we have established a state-of-the art Amputee Care
Center at Walter Reed that has served as the central site for military
amputee care for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/
OIF). Two weeks ago, the Army Surgeon General expanded the Amputee Care
Program by opening a second Amputee Care Center at Brooke Army Medical
Center at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. This second site will help the Army
better manage military amputees by allowing soldiers from the western
half of the United States to receive treatment and rehabilitation in
closer proximity to their homes.
On April 30, 2004, the Department of the Army introduced a Disabled
Soldier Support System (DS3) Initiative that provides its severely
disabled soldiers and their families with a system of advocacy and
follow-up with personal support to assist them as they confront the
stress of their wounds and think through the difficult decision of
continuing to pursue a military career or transitioning from military
service to the civilian community. Working closely with the Joint
Support Operations Center, DS3 incorporates and integrates several
existing programs to provide holistic support services for our severely
disabled soldiers and their families throughout their phased
progression from initial casualty notification to their return to home
station and final career disposition. The system facilitates
communication and coordination between severely disabled soldiers and
their families and the pertinent local, Federal and national agencies
and organizations, such as the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) and
the many commendable Veterans Service Organizations. In addition, DS3
will utilize a system to track and monitor severely disabled soldiers
for a period of up to 5 years beyond their medical retirement in order
to provide appropriate assistance through an array of existing service
providers.
Regrettably, despite our great lifesaving systems and best efforts,
the Army has soldiers who die for reasons ranging from enemy fire to
natural causes and we must address this reality in periods of peace and
war.
Regardless of the cause of death, when one of our soldiers dies it
is a tragic loss for the soldier's survivors. Having addressed the
difficult issue of compensating survivors throughout the Army's
history, we know very well that no benefit can replace a human life.
Although there is no substitute for a fallen soldier's survivors, we
are committed to doing all we can to assist them during their period of
loss and beyond. Caring for survivors is a manifestation of our ethos
to never leave a fallen comrade, and one way the Army lives up to this
commitment is through our Casualty Assistance Program.
When a soldier dies, a Casualty Assistance Officer (CAO) stays with
the family following notification of their loss. Families have access
to their CAO during the days, weeks, months, and, sometimes, even years
after their servicemember's death. These officers provide valuable
counsel and support to the families, offering the family important
advice, running interference when problems arise, arranging for the
military funeral, and ensuring that the families receive all services
and compensation due them. The services and compensation due to
survivors include:
death gratuity
A $12,420 nontaxable death gratuity is intended to provide
immediate cash to meet the needs of survivors. In general, the death
gratuity is payable immediately upon the death of a soldier.
servicemembers' group life insurance
Soldiers may elect insurance coverage in multiples of $10,000 up to
a maximum coverage of $250,000 under the Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance (SGLI) Program. SGLI is a Government group life insurance
program providing coverage to soldiers at rates often lower than those
available, given the added risk in insuring members of the Armed
Forces, under normal commercial insurance policies.
unpaid pay and allowances
Unpaid pay and allowances are payable to designated beneficiary to
include accrued leave.
dependency and indemnity compensation
The VA pays this tax-free monthly benefit to an unremarried
surviving spouse of a soldier who dies from a service-connected
disability and to the soldier's dependent children and parents. The
basic spousal Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) is currently
$993 per month. An additional $247 per month is payable to the spouse
for each dependent child of the deceased soldier under the age of 18.
Additional amounts are authorized for specific purposes. Spouse
eligibility for DIC ends upon remarriage before age 58. DIC can be
restored if the remarriage ends in death or divorce.
Surviving spouses and unmarried children of deceased veterans with
wartime service who do not qualify for DIC may be eligible for death
pension benefits. Eligibility is based on financial need and is not
payable to those with estates large enough to provide maintenance. The
veteran must have been discharged under conditions other than
dishonorable and must have had 90 days or more of active military
service, at least one day of which was during a period of war, or have
been discharged for a service-connected disability and had active
military service during a period of war. If the veteran died in service
but not in the line-of-duty, pension may be payable if the veteran had
completed at least 2 years of honorable service.
survivor benefit plan (sbp)
Surviving spouses of soldiers who die on Active-Duty are entitled
to monthly annuity payments under the SBP. If there is no surviving
spouse, dependent children are eligible. Also eligible is a former
spouse of a soldier who has been ordered by a state court to enroll the
former spouse in SBP at retirement. The amount of the annuity for a
surviving spouse under age 62 is 55 percent of the retired pay the
soldier would have been entitled to receive if the soldier had applied
for retirement on the date of death. The amount of the annuity for a
surviving spouse age 62 or older is currently 35 percent (DIC offset)
until October 2005 when it becomes 40 percent and is gradually tiered
to 55 percent by April 2008. There is no DIC/SBP offset applicable to
children. A surviving spouse who remarries before reaching age 55 loses
entitlement to SBP, although SBP is reinstated if the remarriage ends
in death or divorce.
social security
Social Security death benefits are payable on behalf of a
``currently insured'' deceased soldier to a surviving spouse caring for
the deceased soldier's dependent children under age 16 and to eligible
minor children of the deceased soldier. Social Security old-age
survivor benefits are payable on behalf of a ``fully insured'' deceased
soldier to a surviving spouse at least 60 years old. The amount of an
old age survivor benefit is a percentage of a deceased Soldier's
Primary Insurance Amount, and depends on the age of the survivor at the
time of applying for a Social Security old age survivor benefit.
va dependents' education assistance
Dependents' Education Assistance (DEA) benefits are available to
spouses who have not remarried and children of: (1) individuals who
died on Active-Duty or are permanently and totally disabled as the
result of a disability arising from active military service; (2)
veterans who died from any cause while rated permanently and totally
disabled from service-connected disability; (3) servicemembers listed
for more than 90 days as currently missing in action or captured in
line of duty by a hostile force; (4) servicemembers listed for more
than 90 days as currently detained or interned by a foreign government
or power. This benefit is available for 45 months of full time
training, and payments to a spouse end 10 years from the date the
individual is found eligible or from the date of the death of the
veteran. Children have until their 26th birthday to use their education
benefits.
service academy preference
Children of soldiers who die on Active-Duty (are missing in action
or who die as a result of a disability rated 100 percent) receive
Academy preference for appointment in order of merit by competitive
examination.
montgomery gi bill (title 38)
VA will pay a special Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) death benefit to a
designated survivor in the event of a service-connected death of a
soldier while on Active-Duty or within 1 year after discharge or
release. The soldier's survivor must apply through the VA.
health care
A surviving spouse less than 65 years old and the minor dependents
of a deceased soldier are eligible for space-available medical care at
military medical treatment facilities or are otherwise covered by
TRICARE. A surviving spouse 65 years old or older is eligible for
space-available medical care at military medical treatment facilities
(MTFs) or is otherwise covered by Medicare and TRICARE-for-Life. In
certain very uncommon situations when survivors of those who die in
service are not eligible for military medical benefits, VA's CHAMPVA
Program will provide them with medical benefits.
family member dental plan
A surviving spouse of a soldier and dependents are eligible to
enroll in a Family Member Dental Plan for a period of 1 year when the
soldier dies on Active-Duty and the dependents were enrolled prior to
the death of the soldier.
commissary and exchange privileges
The unmarried surviving spouse and qualified dependents of a
deceased soldier are eligible to shop at military commissaries and
exchanges.
theater and recreation facilities
The unmarried surviving spouse and qualified dependents of a
deceased soldier are eligible to utilize theater and recreation
facilities.
tax benefits
The next-of-kin of a deceased soldier whose death occurs overseas
in a terrorist or military action is exempt from paying Federal income
tax on income received by the decedent during the year of the
decedent's death.
continued government housing or an allowance in lieu thereof
Survivors are provided rent-free Government housing for 180 days
after the death of a soldier or a tax-free housing allowance for that
portion of the 180-day period not in Government housing, with the
amount of the allowance based on the soldier's grade at the time of
death.
guaranteed housing loans
Surviving spouses of servicemembers who died on Active-Duty from a
service-connected disability or of veterans who died from a service-
connected disability are granted VA housing loan benefits. This allows
surviving spouses to obtain home loans on favorable terms without the
need to make a down payment.
burial cost and care of remains of soldier
The DOD reimburses expenses for the soldier's burial, depending on
the type of arrangements, and provides travel for next-of-kin under
invitational travel orders in an amount not larger than normally
incurred by the Secretary in furnishing the supply or service
concerned. To the extent that the DOD benefits would not cover the full
amount of funeral expenses, VA is authorized to pay up to $2,000 to
cover burial and funeral expenses in cases of service-connected deaths.
In addition, VA provides burial in national cemeteries and also
provides burial flags and markers for the graves of deceased
servicemembers.
burial allowance payable by social security
Limited to those who have surviving dependents, it pays $255 in one
lump sum to the spouse. If no surviving spouse, it is paid to children
who are eligible to draw Social Security benefits.
grave and memorial markers
Headstones and markers are provided by VA for the graves of those
interred in private, local, State veterans, or National Cemeteries
without charge and shipped at Government expense to the consignee
designated. The cost of placing a marker in a State, local, or private
cemetery must be born by the applicant.
burial in national cemetery
Soldiers who die while in active military, naval, or air service
are eligible for burial in a National Cemetery. Space may also be
reserved for a spouse. Minor/handicapped children of such soldiers may
also be buried in National/Post Cemetery.
military funeral
Soldiers who die while on Active-Duty are eligible for a military
funeral. The CAO coordinates the funeral with the Army installation
responsible for the geographic area where the interment is to take
place.
shipment of personal effects
When a soldier dies on Active-Duty, his or her personal effects are
shipped to the place of residence of the authorized recipient, if the
recipient did not reside with the deceased soldier.
travel of dependents and shipment of household goods and personal
effects at government expense
The spouse and dependent children of a soldier that dies may move
one time at Government expense. Household goods will not be moved a
greater distance than the personal travel. One motor vehicle can be
shipped at Government expense.
other va benefits
VA also offers a range of additional benefits to survivors,
including home loan guaranties, the Restored Entitlement Program, and
educational or vocational counseling services.
While there are many forms of compensation, there is still more
that we can do. Clearly there are voids in the system, and we are
grateful for the numerous organizations that step-up to fill the gaps
in support of soldiers' survivors. Countless charitable organizations
are providing an invaluable link between the American people and
surviving families to channel support. Through large organizations such
as the Intrepid Foundation's Fallen Heroes Fund and numerous less well-
known organizations and individuals, the American people are making a
difference. Whether in the form of financial support, counseling, or
other services, these organizations and their supporters untiringly
communicate the American people's support for their fallen. As our All-
Volunteer Force continues to stand strong in its most challenging hour,
the contributions of these charitable organizations are absolutely
invaluable to the well being of our force. We cannot thank them enough.
The Army is always willing to address ways to better support our
family members, especially after the loss of a soldier who was actively
serving our Nation. We are very encouraged by recent interest in
raising the death gratuity and other survivor benefits for our soldiers
and will support any efforts to improve compensation to the families of
our fallen.
Everything we do to support survivors would not be possible without
this committee's steadfast dedication to your military and to America's
sons and daughters, who are serving selflessly throughout the world to
make America safe and free. Thank you and your committee for your
continued support of our soldiers and their families and for your
leadership in providing better survivor benefits. Thank you again for
this opportunity to discuss issues surrounding support to our severely
wounded soldiers as well as the death gratuity and survivor benefits. I
look forward to the opportunity to participate in this session and
answering any questions you may have.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. You said retroactive. If you
have set a date, I missed it.
General Cody. I have not set a date, sir. I think that will
be part of the discussion.
Chairman Warner. It will be part of the discussion.
General Cody. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. So you purposely omitted reference to a
date.
General Cody. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
From the United States Navy, Admiral Nathman.
STATEMENT OF ADM JOHN B. NATHMAN, USN, VICE CHIEF OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES NAVY
Admiral Nathman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin,
and the distinguished members of this committee. Thank you for
the opportunity to address you here today to discuss the
support and assistance we provide to our surviving family
members and for the care of our severely injured sailors,
soldiers, marines, and airmen.
This is clearly a subject worthy of our collective time and
debate, and for those of us serving, we are thankful for your
attention to this important matter. We appreciate the
continuing support, both in policy and in resources, that
enables us to provide a continuum of care for our
servicemembers. Your efforts here today, just deliberating this
issue, signals your clear concern to our servicemembers and
their families.
I also appreciate this committee's efforts in working with
other committees of Congress to ensure the appropriate balance
of benefits and the capabilities to meet the needs of the armed
servicemember. I particularly appreciated the way Senator
Sessions put it. I believe there is a very strong bond between
the citizens of the United States and those who serve in
uniform. That bond is strong. I would call it a covenant bond.
I think if we are going to talk about benefits for those who
serve, it should not be just for those who are in a designated
geographic area.
So I look forward to working with you and your staffs as we
move forward and will remain fully engaged and committed in
delivering the right benefits on behalf of a grateful Nation.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Nathman follows:]
Prepared Statement by ADM John B. Nathman, USN
introduction
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members of this distinguished
committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss
the ongoing support and assistance we provide our surviving family
members and the care provided for our severely injured sailors.
Providing this support and care to our sailors and their families is a
Navy priority and each case is handled individually by a trained
professional.
navy casualty assistance
These deliberations today are both important and serious. We go to
great lengths to recruit and train our servicemembers and to welcome
them and their families into the great tradition and heritage of the
United States Navy. Members of the Armed Forces may give their lives
while serving our country in the line-of-duty. When a sailor dies, our
sole mission is to render prompt and compassionate assistance to help
reduce the suffering of the servicemember's family. We have a casualty
assistance network available 24/7, a group of highly dedicated and
trained professionals that notify the next of kin as fast as possible
and then remain with them during the weeks ahead. These Casualty
Assistance Calls Officers (CACO), who are customarily accompanied by a
Navy chaplain, make all notifications in person. The Navy's highly
effective program is staffed by specially selected senior enlisted and
officers who are well suited to effectively perform this difficult
task.
The CACO's full time responsibility is to support the family. The
CACO will assist with funeral preparations; travel to and from a burial
site; and attend the burial service. The CACO assists the family with
various claims to obtain their benefits and entitlements as well as any
relocation desires. Supporting the CACO are Regional Casualty
Coordinators and headquarters personnel who personally supervise each
case to ensure that all families are accorded the highest level of
attention and assistance. As you might imagine, the needs of individual
families vary dramatically, but the assigned CACO attempts to
anticipate and react expeditiously to any issue or concern that may
arise. This is a well-executed program, and I am proud of our CACOs and
their selfless devotion to Navy families.
survivor benefits and entitlements
As I mentioned, the CACO assists each family in obtaining the full
financial support to which they are entitled. Navy centrally manages
the processing of all death benefits and entitlements. Certification
proceeds at a good pace. A death gratuity payment is made to the
designated beneficiary as soon as possible following notification of
the member's death. Accrued unpaid pays and allowances owed to the
member, to include any unused leave, reenlistment bonus installments,
uniform allowances, etc., are generally paid within 7 to 10 days.
Payment of Servicemember Group Life Insurance (SGLI) generally occurs
within 7 to 10 days. Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is generally
paid within 30 days. Payment of Dependency Indemnity Compensation (DIC)
from the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) is paid within 6-8 weeks
and the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuities are also paid within 6-8
weeks. I want to add that Navy truly appreciates the strategic
partnerships formed with the VA and Social Security Administration
(SSA) to expedite benefits processing partnerships that have
streamlined submissions and greatly increased processing efficiencies.
I would like to mention that there are times, however, when this
process is temporarily--and consciously--halted in order to protect the
interests of a family member. For example, in the case of a minor child
named as a beneficiary; we must wait until a legal guardian is
appointed before making payment. These cases are not systemic problems,
but systemic protections for the individual receiving benefits.
The Navy also counsels and encourages our surviving family members
to utilize the financial counseling offered by the Office of
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (OSGLI) as well as grief
counseling offered by the VA, both of which have proven reliable and
available free of charge.
medical care and support of our critically injured
The Navy also has a coordinated and tailored response for the men
and women of our Armed Forces returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and
other areas of conflict with severe debilitating injuries. These
servicemembers and their families are faced with very difficult long-
term challenges. The Navy and Marine Corps team provides a strong
coordinated and unified approach to assist them and their families to
recover and reintegrate.
Our patients and their families deserve excellent health care.
Severely wounded sailors and marines are almost always transferred from
overseas to National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) in Bethesda for care.
NNMC representatives meet with all incoming medical evaluation
(MEDEVAC) patients and family members upon their arrival. Patients are
admitted and surgical and/or medical teams make further medical
assessments and establish the best course of treatment.
Planning for post-hospital care begins almost immediately upon
arrival at Bethesda. Because family support is essential to the
recovery of injured servicemembers, the Navy takes full advantage of
all resources afforded to them and maximizes these in developing the
most appropriate care plan for their recovery and rehabilitation.
Depending on the specific needs of the sailor and marine, their care
plans could include care at another military treatment facility (MTF),
a Veterans' Medical Center, or in some cases a specialized civilian
facility.
Some examples of our integrated health care delivery team include
the coordination between the NNMC Social Work and Case Management
Departments, counselors from the VA, and the Marine Corps Liaison
Office--all located on the Bethesda campus. Representatives from these
organizations interact with patients and family members throughout the
course of treatment. They serve as educators for their respective
programs and advocates for the needs of the patient and their families.
Our goal is for every patient to return to Active-Duty. Some of
those who are injured, and placed in a limited duty status, go on to
receive specialized care only available through the VA. These
servicemembers remain on Active-Duty and are closely monitored by Navy
Medicine. Other sailors or marines, who have fully recovered, but
sustained permanent injuries, may seek waiver status to remain on
Active-Duty, and receive their care at MTFs. Regrettably, some
servicemembers have sustained injuries that will prevent them from
remaining on Active-Duty. In these cases, the patients and their
families are supported to the fullest extent possible as they
transition to veteran's status under the VA.
conclusion
Chairman Warner, I thank you and the members of this committee for
your continued support and the opportunity to appear before the full
committee today. All of us serving in the Armed Forces are thankful for
your attention to this important matter.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Admiral Nathman. We welcome
you. I believe this is your first appearance before the full
committee.
Admiral Nathman. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. You will be back.
Admiral Nathman. Thank you, sir. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. General Nyland.
STATEMENT OF GEN. WILLIAM L. NYLAND, USMC, ASSISTANT
COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
General Nyland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin,
distinguished members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to address you today to provide my perspective on
these vital issues associated with the care of our war
casualties and their families that come as a result of their
death or injury. Let me open by offering each of you and your
staffs my deepest appreciation for the financial and moral
support you have continuously provided to our men and women in
uniform.
As marines, we pride ourselves on taking care of our own,
and we work very hard to mitigate the terrible tragedy of death
or disabling injury. We have very efficient internal support
services to assist families in their decisionmaking and, in the
case of the wounded, to help immediate family members in their
travel to Bethesda, Walter Reed, or whatever facility their
loved one might be hospitalized. This is the right thing to do
considering their sacrifice, and it is critical to the recovery
process. Your support in that in last year's act is greatly
appreciated.
Not long ago, we instituted our Marine for Life program to
ensure marines returning to civilian life were assisted in that
transition and to nurture and sustain, once a marine, always a
marine. Just recently, we have added a new aspect to the
program, the Injured Support Program, which will focus on
serving our disabled marines. This project is designed to help
them with job search, schooling, and generally settling back
into society. As you well know, it is often very difficult to
navigate the complicated rules, regulations, and justifications
associated with big service related organizations. We hope to
help them cut that red tape, get what the law says they
deserve, and what they have earned in service to this great
Nation.
In this regard, we will place liaison officers with the VA
and other organizations to facilitate the process. This
initiative will have marines on the other end of the phone and
in their communities helping marines and sailors who were
injured while serving with marines.
We are here today to talk about the benefits we give the
families of those who pay the ultimate price on our behalf. I
do not know what the complete right answer is, but my sense is
that what we receive or give them today is inadequate, and it
certainly seems more than appropriate to do more to try and
mitigate the loss of a loved one.
Certainly Senator Sessions' proposed HEROES Act and
multiple other bills and the DOD's approach go a long way
toward addressing this need. That said, I would worry that we
would try and distinguish between types of service to this
great Nation, be it direct combat or not. I firmly believe that
we would do great harm to our service men and women, all of
whom serve our great Nation magnificently, if we were to make
such distinctions in one's service. Whatever we as a Nation do
in the long run, we must all work together to develop benefits
that assist the families of those who lose a loved one or have
a severely disabled member.
Mr. Chairman, this entire committee and you personally have
done so much for the casualties of this war and for their
families. I know each of you feel those losses personally, and
you have all made it part of your life's work to understand the
plight of the families left behind.
I am honored to be here today. I look forward to working
with the committee and with the Department and also to your
questions. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of General Nyland follows:]
Prepared Statement by Gen. William L. Nyland, USMC
Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, distinguished members of the
committee; today, America is at war. The Marine Corps as an institution
is fully committed to this life-and-death struggle, and in protecting
the American people and our way of life. The over 35,000 marines and
sailors serving today in Iraq and Afghanistan are performing superbly
due to their training and extraordinary courage. They, more than any of
us sitting protected in this great hall today, fully understand the
danger to the Nation and what it takes to ensure its survival. We can
never forget there is a terrible, but necessary, human cost that cannot
be measured in dollars--it is their sacrifice that we can only stand in
awe of, particularly when they did not have to serve in the first
place. Marines, and sailors who serve with marines, and their families,
are fully aware that if you are wearing the precious Eagle, Globe and
Anchor today you are either in on the field of battle, just returning,
or packing your seabag to go. Since our Nation suffered the monstrous
attack on September 11, 2001, 414 marines have been killed protecting
every one of us here today, and nearly 4,000 have been wounded. On
behalf of every marine, and the brave sailors who serve with us, their
spouses, children, mothers and fathers, I thank this Congress for your
continued and indispensable support. I thank the committee for the
opportunity to participate in evolving efforts to insure that our
protectors, regardless of uniform, and their families are provided for
whether they are killed or maimed in the defense of this great Nation.
I would like to begin by framing measures the Marine Corps is
undertaking to reduce stress on the force and your marines and their
families.
reducing stress on the force
Currently, the Corps is fully engaged across the spectrum of
military operations in prosecuting the global war on terrorism. Since
the watershed events of September 11, 2001, the core competencies,
capabilities, and our 50-year, nonnegotiable focus on readiness and our
culture of deployment has served us well in this war. There is no
operation, no trick, no new tactic or technique, regardless of how
illegal or despicable, that our enemy has employed against us that we
have not been able to adjust to. The high state of training and quality
of our marines along with their warrior ethos--highlighted by our creed
that every marine is a rifleman--allows Marines to thrive in the
chaotic, unstable, and unpredictable environment that has always
characterized warfare and that our very adaptable enemies methodically
attempt to exploit. We took advantage of the lessons we learned during
our first 10 months in Iraq--when Baghdad and Tikrit were liberated,
and we administered the southern half of the country in Phase IV
operations--amidst a growing insurgency, improvised explosive devices
(IEDs), and criminal acts against us in the name of extremism, to
prepare for our return a year ago to the Al Anbar Province where we are
locked in combat today.
Since March last year, the I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) of
over 30,000 has fought the insurgency to a standstill in unconventional
operations across the zone, as well as in bitter street fighting in
Fallujah and Ramadi. With one hand stretched out in friendship to the
majority of the Iraqi people who are the true victims of the
extremists, and the other with weapon firmly in hand, we have
endeavored to bring stability and security to the Province. Our
expeditious and innovative pre-deployment combat skills training
program, rapid modifications of our equipment to meet an evolving
threat, and our emphasis on cultural appreciation and language
capabilities, have all contributed to our considerable accomplishments
in this complex region. Reinforced by three Marine Expeditionary Units
(MEUs), I MEF is executing any number of security, urban combat, nation
building, counterinsurgency, aviation command and control, and force
protection missions with great confidence and skill. The enemy is
smart, adaptable, and plays by no rule that civilized men and women
would recognize; we, however, are smarter, more adaptable, and will
ultimately win because our efforts are in the interests of precious
liberties enshrined in our most revered national documents. Battles
like those in Fallujah, Ramadi, and the Northern Babil Province link
this generation of marines to the rich legacy of selfless courage and
warfighting excellence, that has defined marines of every generation.
In Afghanistan this past spring, we provided, on short-notice, a
regimental headquarters, an infantry battalion, and a combined arms
MEU. This Marine Force was a major portion of the combined joint task
force ``Spring Offensive'' to help set the conditions for the
successful election that has advanced the process of establishing a
secure and stable government in Afghanistan. We continue to provide
both ground and aviation forces--currently an infantry battalion,
elements of two helicopter squadrons, and training teams--to protect
and foster this new democracy.
In addition to these operations, our concurrent support to other
regions including the Horn of Africa, the Pacific, South Asian Tsunami
relief, evacuation of noncombatants from Liberia, and the peace
operation in Haiti, all has demonstrated the almost unlimited range of
readiness and adaptability resident in this Corps of Marines that
typically come from the sea, and return with the mission accomplished.
As on many occasions in the past, naval forces, led by marines
ashore, responded quickly and were deeply involved in the saving of
lives and providing comfort to millions in the wake of the Sumatran
earthquake and Indian Ocean tsunami. We should not underestimate the
importance of these kinds of humanitarian missions as they are not only
what decent people do, but are the purest and most giving form of
engagement in a region critical to the war against extremism. As an
aside, the marines involved in this relief operation have re-embarked
on their amphibious ships, and are back on their way to their original
destination--Iraq.
Currently, we are also conducting a major rotation of our units and
headquarters in Iraq. Most of these units have previously deployed to
the war, but we have matched their training and equipment to take
advantage of the lessons learned by those on the ground today at such a
high price. The combatant commander has requested a force of nearly
22,000 marines organized around 6 maneuver battalions, 3,000 of whom
are activated from our Reserve component.
While our readiness remains acceptable in the short term, the
demand on the force is straining our marines, their families, and our
equipment and materiel stocks. Operational tempo is high--the entire
Marine Corps is supporting the global war on terror and no forces have
been fenced. In the past 2 years, we have gone from a deployment
rotation of one-to-three (66 months out/18 months back) to our current
one-to-one ratio (7 months out/7 months back) for our infantry
battalions and other high demand assets. This means that units in the
operating forces are either deployed or are training to relieve
deployed units. Since September 11, we have activated in excess of 95
percent of our Selected Marine Corps Reserve units. The vast majority
has served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Despite this high operational
tempo, the Marine Corps continues to meet its recruiting and retention
goals in quantity and quality, but the effort required by individual
recruiters and career retention specialists has increased
exponentially.
End Strength
We truly appreciate authorization to increase our end strength by
3,000 in the fiscal year 2005 bill. These additional marines will
assist in reducing stress on the individuals already shouldering such a
heavy burden. We are looking hard as to whether a further increase will
be necessary to meet long-term commitments where we are fighting today,
and for what might come tomorrow. We have also conducted a thorough
review of internal manpower policies and procedures, completely
reexamined the force structure, and have made recommendations to the
Commandant on unit activation and deactivation, ``civilianization,''
and a number of realignments. One immediate result of this effort has
been the recommendation to create additional high demand units, and
specialties to address pressures within the force. We are also
enhancing the manning of our infantry units, creating a dedicated
Foreign Military Training Unit, adding to our recruiting force, our
training base, and other support for the operating forces. These
initiatives, coupled with those implemented as part of the overall
force structure reduce somewhat the personnel tempo and consequently of
operations. It also reduces the stress on individual marines and their
families.
Force Structure Review Group
As mentioned previously we recognized the need to continue
transforming and rebalancing forces to meet the needs of the 21st
century. A comprehensive review of our Total Force structure, Active
and Reserve, was conducted last summer. We are implementing the
recommended force structure initiatives with the majority achieving
operational capability in fiscal year 2006, and full operational
capability by fiscal year 2008. These initiatives are end strength and
structure neutral--offsets to balance these increases in capabilities
are internal to the Marine Corps and come from military to civilian
conversions and the disestablishment and reorganization of less
critical capabilities. The Marine Corps will continue to evaluate our
force structure to ensure that it provides the needed capabilities in a
timely manner to support our national security requirements.
Major structural changes in the active component include the
establishment of two additional infantry battalions, three light
armored reconnaissance companies, three reconnaissance companies, two
force reconnaissance platoons, and an additional Air-Naval Gunfire
Liaison Company (ANGLICO). We will also augment our existing explosive
ordnance disposal, intelligence, aviation support, civil affairs,
command and control, and psychological operations assets.
In the Reserve component these structure initiatives will increase
the capability of Marine Forces Reserve Command as it takes an
increasingly active role in the war. We will establish an Intelligence
Support Battalion, a Security/Anti-terrorism Battalion, and two
additional light armored reconnaissance companies. We will also augment
existing capabilities in the areas of civil affairs and command and
control, and we are restructuring some Reserve units to convert them
into Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) Detachments--allowing the
Nation more timely access to these Marine reservists to support
contingency operations. In terms of military to civilian conversion we
continue to pursue a sensible strategy to increase the number of
marines in the operating forces. Last year we converted 664 billets,
and we are on course to achieve an additional 1,697 through September
2006.
Marine Corps Reserve
Thanks to strong congressional support in the past, the Marine
Corps has trained and equipped its Reserve to be capable of rapid
activation, and deployment. This capability allows Reserve combat
deployments to mirror those of the active component in duration. These
reduced duration deployments have helped us to sustain the Reserve
Force, and avoid untimely extensions. Through this process, the Marine
Corps has been able to maximize force management of the Reserve,
maintain unit integrity, and lessen the burden on the families by
maintaining generally shorter deployments.
Over 10,000 Marine Reserves are currently serving on Active-Duty in
support of the war. Well over 8,000 are serving in cohesive ground,
aviation, and combat support units, led by combat capable Reserve
officers and noncommissioned officers (NCOs). Another 1,500 are
individual augmentees in both Marine and Joint commands and headquarter
elements. A total of almost 30,000 of our Reserve marines have served
on Active-Duty since that terrible day in September nearly 4 years ago,
with 95 percent of the units in our Reserve component having been
activated.
reducing stress on the marine and their families
The Marine Corps continues to answer the call because of our
individual marines, and the support they receive from their families
and from the Nation. Morale and commitment are high. Marines join the
Corps to ``fight and win battles'' and we are certainly giving them the
opportunity to do that. We are an expeditionary force accustomed to
deployments, but as earlier stated, this fight is not without its costs
to both marines and their families.
Marine Corps Community Services
Taking care of marines and their families is essential to the
operational readiness of the Corps. The relevance of this mission is
particularly evident when leaders at all levels assess preparedness of
their command and unit functioning before, during, and after forward
deployments. As an expeditionary force we are accustomed to frequent
deployments--it is part of our culture and is one of the key reasons
why young Americans join the Marine Corps--yet the current environment
contains elements of personal danger and family risk that must be
addressed with appropriate and timely support. To date in all our
worldwide operations, we have been careful to closely monitor our
programs, adjusting as needed to ensure marines and their families
receive the necessary care to sustain them through every deployment
cycle. In this regard, the Marine Corps Community Services (MCCS)
organizations' combined structure of family services, Morale, Welfare
and Recreation Programs, voluntary off duty education, and exchange
operations, allow us to efficiently and effectively help families meet
the challenges associated with our lifestyle and current operational
tempo.
Deployment Support
During the pre-deployment period, families attend to the
administrative details of wills, powers of attorney, and insurance, and
family care plans, as they always have. Spouses then connect in both a
formal and informal way through the commander's Key Volunteer Network
organized to provide accurate and timely information on the status of
the deployment. This network also mobilizes to embrace those families
who receive the dreaded knock on the door to notify them of the death,
or serious injury, of their loved one serving overseas. This is in
addition, of course, to the formal assist provided by the casualty
officer assigned in every case. The spouses involved in this program
are all volunteers, work day and night without respite, and shoulder
their own burdens of stress and often grief, while helping others
through theirs. They are the behind-the-scenes heroes of this war, and
we love them for what they do.
We have developed a series of pre-deployment, in-theater (Iraq and
Afghanistan), return and reunion, and post-deployment awareness and
support services to mitigate potential problems shaped by traumatic
combat experiences and associated stress. The assumption we make is
that none of us are immune from the social tragedies of suicide,
domestic violence, or sexual assault. We also assume that risk factors
can be exacerbated by a wide range of factors associated with normal
deployments and most especially war, and we have implemented a variety
of active counseling services to address individual and unit concerns.
Examples include: the Critical Incident Stress Debriefing Program,
designed to address the symptoms and risks of untreated combat stress,
its signs, and the resources available for treatment; and our
Operational Stress Control and Readiness Program (OSCAR), where we
embed a mental health professional(s) in battalion aid stations. It has
resulted in a marked decrease in evacuations for mental health reasons.
Prior to departing a combat zone, and immediately upon return to home
station, we have instituted a rest and decompression period in which
small unit commanders, NCOs, and chaplains, provide the a Warrior
Transition Brief. This series of discussions focuses on preparing
returning marines and sailors to integrate with loved ones and society.
A wide array of services is also available at our installations through
chaplains, medical treatment facilities, and MCCS, to support every
member of the marine community in the post-deployment phase of their
lives. For those in need residing a distance from our installations,
face-to-face counseling services are available through the MCCS
OneSource Program.
We recognize that family readiness is integral to unit readiness.
To help our families through the separation and stress of deployment
Congress, through Supplemental Appropriations, has provided extended
childcare services, and we are grateful for this support. Information
and referral services are offered via different access points to
include the key volunteers, command Web sites and hotlines, and MCCS
OneSource, which offers round the clock information and referral
services via toll-free telephone and Internet access. This program has
also proven to be an especially valuable resource to assist Reserve
marines and their families who often experience special challenges as
they attempt to acclimate to Active-Duty life when called up.
Casualty Assistance
Every one of us, particularly the families, appreciate recent
legislative actions that help in the event of a death of serious
injury. In particular are those funds provided for expanded
authorization for parents of our deceased to attend funerals when they
are not the primary next-of-kin, and also for paid travel to the
bedside of the badly injured, those facing extended hospital and
rehabilitation stays. This is important to their morale, and critical
in the recovery of these heroes. We have established internal support
services, including an extensive network of Casualty Assistance Calls
Officers (CACOs) throughout the country, that serve as the primary
point of contact for the families of deceased and severely injured
marines. We have always done it this way, but it's better than it has
ever been as we serve these families with a shoulder to lean on, and,
when it is time and they are ready for help and advice in navigating
through the complexities of military benefit and entitlement programs,
and even with offers from benevolent organizations who want to help.
This support is managed through our Headquarters Casualty Affairs
section, and has been enhanced by the development and implementation of
an Office of the Secretary of Defense-funded Injured/Ill Patient
Tracking Web site. Commanders now have nearly real time visibility of
their injured marines through all stages in the medical and
convalescence process.
In this vein, I would like to thank Congress for the continued
support of the programs and services so critical to the readiness of
our Corps, to include provisions of supplemental appropriations; all of
which directly contribute to quality of life enhancements. Also, for
your kind and caring visits at hospitals and in homes across the
country, visits that provide comfort and motivation to those wounded in
the war that is protecting us here at home in our daily lives.
Marine For Life--Injured Support
Building on to the organizational network and strengths of the
previously established Marine for Life Program, we are currently
implementing an Injured Support Program to assist the disabled after
they are discharged. The goal is to never forget them or what they have
done, and to bridge the often difficult and lengthy gap between the
care we in the Marine Corps and Navy provide, and that which the
Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) assumes. The key is to ensure
continuity of support through transition and assistance for however
long it might take, and certainly to cover the gap in entitlements that
sometimes is many months long. Planned features of the program include
advocacy within the Marine Corps and Navy for the disabled and their
families, and help getting over the hurdles of any external agencies
they might interact with. An extremely big part of this will be both
pre- and post-service separation case management, assistance in working
with physical evaluation boards, an interactive Web site for
disability/benefit information, assistance with Federal hiring
preferences and law, and improved VA handling of marine cases by the
attachment of a liaison officer embedded within the VA headquarters.
The program began operations in early January, and it will never stop
evolving and improving its services. If there is any area that needs
more interest, it is in the long term help and assistance for our
disabled personnel and their families.
Death Benefits
The final topic I must address is perhaps the most difficult, the
death of a serviceman or woman in the defense of our way of life. While
their deaths, whether it is in combat or in a training accident here in
the United States, are tragic, they are heroes . . . not victims. They
stepped forward to a life of service when they did not have to, and
even as young as they are, they knew what they were getting into, what
the dangers were, what the possibilities might be. There are those who
might not believe this, but it is true. The only experience they cannot
imagine, because it is unimaginable, is combat itself. They stood tall
when the country needed them, came when they did not have to, and had
they not, no one would call them coward. Let me walk you through what
happens when a family is notified of a death.
When they open the door a marine officer is always standing there
to give them the most dreaded news they will ever receive. Details are
few and will typically only include the time and place of the death,
and perhaps a little bit of the how. This officer then quite literally
becomes part of the family for as long as they need him--forever if
necessary. When appropriate, and it is always awkward, he provides them
a death gratuity check for $12,000, then helps them through the process
of making funeral arrangements as the flag-draped coffin with what was
their son or daughter, brother or sister, husband or wife, is on the
way home. Only when buried, and we help them with the expenses here as
well, do the conversations turn to additional monies and benefits. This
is often pressed by the officer, as the families seldom think in terms
of what might be their entitlements, and are often surprised at what
they hear. In addition to the already paid death gratuity, there is the
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) policy payment of $250,000,
some of the premiums of which are paid for by the now dead marine. If
married at the time of death there are monthly stipends that come in
from Social Security, the VA, and the Department of Defense, and these
very frequently are more than what the deceased may have made while
alive. Something to keep in mind, however, is the burden of combat
deaths fall most often on the Privates First Class and Lance Corporals;
whose average yearly wages are $17,000. These benefits of course depend
on how many children and other specific circumstances, and decrease
over time due to age or a surviving child's student status.
I have queried the Marine Corps Legislative Liaison staff members
who work so closely with your own staffs on a full range of issues,
about inquiries related to deaths in an attempt to gain some insights
on how all of these financial arrangements are received by the families
of the fallen. We really have no trends other than perhaps the issue of
post-death payments from VA and Social Security that we work to
expedite. Anecdotally, I can tell you that there are many spouses
grieving over a death who make the point that it would be very helpful
to have an increase in the SGLI option to two or even four times its
current amount, with the cost of buying a home and college the most
common rationale. They are not bitter, angry, or disappointed at what
they receive, but in retrospect wish they had taken out more insurance.
In conclusion, on behalf of your marines and their families, I
thank this committee for your continued and indispensable support
during these demanding times as we attempt to defend America, and
spread the freedoms we enjoy to everyone man, woman, and child in Iraq
and Afghanistan. I would also add that no recruit that raises his or
her hand and swears a solemn oath to serve and protect this Nation--
even unto death--joins the Marine Corps for long-term financial
benefit. They certainly never give a thought to programs that will
assist them and their families in the event they are severely disabled
or killed. It is all ultimately part of the recruiting and retention
package, however, and in an increasingly difficult recruiting
environment particularly for the two Services shouldering the greatest
burden of death and injury in this war, we must take a very hard look
at anything that will set the minds of those in the war and their
families at ease. Regardless of what uniform they wear, where they
serve, or what their specialty is, if they move against our enemies in
this global war they need to be supported in the way they deserve. We
must also not forget the disabled who have unique financial and mental
health difficulties those of us who are healthy can never fathom. Their
obstacles are great, their recovery forever, and we must not let them
slip into the abyss that comes with being put aside and forgotten.
I again thank the committee for your unwavering support for your
Marine Corps and all our great Nation's servicemembers.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, General Nyland, for
your personal reference to the members of this committee. We
have worked hard and we will continue.
General Moseley.
STATEMENT OF GEN. T. MICHAEL MOSELEY, USAF, VICE CHIEF OF
STAFF, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
General Moseley. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, distinguished
committee members, thank you for holding these hearings today
and for the opportunity to address these critical issues for
our folks. You, in this committee, have been stalwart stewards
for the defense of our great republic, and we truly appreciate
your concern and continued support for our folks.
In this global war on terrorism, our airmen, Active, Guard,
Reserve, and civilians are all fighting as one cohesive team
with an outstanding joint team of soldiers, sailors, marines,
and coast guardsmen. This global war is not isolated to a
single geographic location and includes a multitude of
activities in the execution of these combat tasks, as well as
the preparation for these combat duties. Today's airmen are
smart, courageous, and determined. They are doing what they
have been trained to do, and they do it with excellence.
It is my opinion that we can do better to address benefits
and compensation for them and their families. If a
servicemember is wounded in action, the Air Force will do
whatever it takes to help them recover, and when a military
member pays the ultimate price for his country, I believe with
all my heart that we must take care of those left behind, their
families, and particularly their children. We cannot lessen
this pain and we cannot heal this hurt, but we can, for sure,
help them with the unforgiving demands of continuing their
lives without a father or without a mother.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of the Air Force is a part of
a great joint team fighting a tough fight, a fight that we must
win. But none of the challenges in that fight are more personal
for us here at this table or more important than taking care of
our troops and their families.
Again, thank you for your continued support of our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guardsmen. I, as
well as my colleagues, look forward to your questions. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of General Moseley follows:]
Prepared Statement by Gen. T. Michael Moseley, USAF
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and committee members, thank you for
holding these hearings today. You have been stalwart stewards for the
defense of our great Republic.
In war our top priorities are to accomplish the mission and to take
care of our people. Back on the home front, the best thing we can do
for those fighting our wars is to take care of their families. We owe
our military men and women the certainty that if they are severely
injured or killed, we will look after them and their loved ones.
If a servicemember is wounded in action, the Air Force will do
whatever it takes to help them recover. Our Palace Helping Airmen
Recover Together (HART) program follows Air Force wounded in action
until they return to Active-Duty or are medically retired. We work to
retain them on Active-Duty if it is at all possible. If we are unable
to return airmen to Active-Duty, we work to get them civilian
employment within the Air Force. Finally, we also make sure they are
counseled on all the benefits they are entitled to within the
Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA), and
the Department of Labor. I am thankful for the work Dr. Chu has done in
standing up the Joint Support Operations Center. This DOD center is a
great complement to our own program and will ensure that no injured
airmen is forgotten or neglected. As of today, 166 airmen have been
wounded in action; 145 of them have returned to Active-Duty; 1 has
medically separated; and 20 are on convalescent leave or awaiting a
medical board.
At Walter Reed and at Andrews, I've met many of the injured airmen
and soldiers returning from war. I am proud of them and their courage
as they travel the hard road to recovery. Every airman I've met wanted
to return to Active-Duty and their unit. Our skilled medical personnel
have helped improve the odds of a full recovery far beyond the odds
available even 10 years ago. We currently have 11 airmen being treated
on an out-patient basis due to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) injuries.
What of the killed in action (KIA)? When a military member pays the
ultimate price for his country, I believe with all my heart that we
must take care of those they left behind--their family. We cannot
lessen their pain, we cannot heal their hurt, but we can help them with
the unforgiving demands of continuing their lives. Here is where the
Air Force focuses on the whole experience: from compassionately making
the initial contact, to gently organizing the transition period and
funeral, and finally to loyally helping the family adjust to the long-
term loss.
I am proud of our professional and compassionate Casualty
Assistance Officers (CAOs). These highly trained volunteers are with
the families from the point they are initially notified, and stick with
them for as long as they are needed. This personal relationship is
crucial to properly taking care of the bereaved.
The CAO, alongside chaplains and other friends within the
community, help the family cope with difficult emotions, while also
helping them navigate complex financial hurdles. Dr. Chu has detailed
the financial assistance we currently give to the families. In 2003,
this committee helped change the law; increasing the gratuity and
providing it to the family of any military member, who died while on
Active-Duty, and we truly appreciate the full support.
We continue to work to improve the Air Force's process and
attention to detail in taking care of the airmens' families.
Besides the death gratuity and payment for funeral expenses, the
other major payment to our airmen is done under the Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance (SGLI). This low cost insurance is a benefit that
almost every airman uses. Currently 99 percent of all enlisted members
are covered by SGLI with 88 percent electing the maximum coverage of
$250,000. Only 0.02 percent elected zero coverage. Amongst the officer
ranks, 92 percent elected the maximum SGLI coverage. Only 4 percent
elect zero coverage. SGLI is a great benefit, and I appreciate your
desire to strengthen it further.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Department of the
Air Force is part of a great joint team fighting a global war on
terrorism. We are challenged every day in the conduct of combat
operations across the globe. None of the challenges, though, are more
personal or more important than taking care of our airmen and their
families. Thank you for the unwavering support you have given our
Nation. Thank you for calling this hearing. I am grateful to you for
the opportunity to reexamine this important issue.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, General. This has
been an excellent presentation by our panel.
I again mentioned, Senator McCain, that you were among
those who recommended that we bring up the military services to
make there is sort of a unity of views here, and I think we are
achieving that.
Again, in recognition of the initiatives by Senator
Sessions over a number of years on this issue, I will yield my
question time to you and then take my turn at the bottom of the
order. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for really
giving us the first hearing. You said we were going to move on
this promptly and you certainly have. I think it is time for us
to bring it to a reality.
There are a lot of different ways we can do it. We will
have some ideas, and I am sure the legislation that Senator
Lieberman and I have offered can be improved today or in the
days to come. Hopefully, we can bring it to final passage.
Dr. Chu, I would like to see us consider moving this as
part of the defense supplemental, or there could be other ways
it could be done. I know that is one way it would move rapidly.
What are your thoughts about that?
Dr. Chu. We certainly have no objection, Senator. We
endorse the principle of retroactivity back to the start of
current operations in October of 2001. So if it is done in a
later vehicle, the authorization bill, for example, we would
still be taking care of all those concerned.
Chairman Warner. I have talked with the Majority Leader
about this, and I think he has been consulting Senator Reid. I
do hope that this can be achieved, Senator.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you are
pushing to make this a reality soon.
General Nyland, I was in Iraq 2 weeks ago and in Fallujah
where I met with the Marines. What a magnificent accomplishment
those marines demonstrated there. That was a tough battle. I
think it is too little appreciated just how difficult it was.
They had to go house to house against a determined, often
suicidal enemy. We lost 70, maybe 80 marines in that tough
battle. They performed with courage and fidelity to duty. They
never waivered and there were never any complaints, just ``we
want to do the job.'' It was just thrilling to be with them,
and I wanted to say that.
The life insurance, SGLI, applies to every service person
no matter what they do and how they may lose their life. But if
it is in a hostile zone, they do not have to pay the premiums
on the extra $150,000, from $250,000 to $400,000. I think there
is some distinction between a person in a hostile fire zone and
a person not in a hostile fire zone who may lose their life. I
would love to make sure we have some flexibility for you and
members in uniform who have wrestled with these issues for
years to reach the right decision about how to say the death
benefit is paid. That is what we are really talking about. It
would only affect the death benefit portion here.
Do you have thoughts about that? Would you like more
flexibility and an opportunity to work on the details more
carefully before this legislation finally moves?
General Nyland. Senator, yes, sir. First, thank you for the
comments on the marines, and I would be remiss if I did not add
that we did that in company with my great brother and soldier,
Dick Cody, and his soldiers.
Senator Sessions. You are correct. There were quite a
number of Army personnel in that fight.
General Nyland. I think I would like a little more time to
understand the details, sir. For me, if a young man or a young
lady steps forward and raises his right hand to serve this
great Nation, I think we have to be very careful about making
any distinctions about the type of service that they rendered.
There are some additional benefits if you are in combat,
obviously, with tax exclusions, hostile fire pay, and hazardous
duty pay. We have to be very careful not to omit those who
might be training to go, or perhaps, one who has already
returned and is having trouble adapting and perhaps loses his
life through a late night at the club, trying to come to grips
with what he may have seen over there, and accidentally loses
his life on the way home. So my concern is that if an
individual wears the cloth of this great Nation, we just have
to understand completely and be very careful about how we would
characterize his service.
I think we have some vehicles in our line-of-duty
investigations that would allow us to address that, but I do
think we probably ought to make sure we really have it right
before we slap the table, sir.
Senator Sessions. Well, I thank you for your insights into
that.
Mr. Epley, the legislation that Senator Lieberman and I
offered would bring SGLI up to $400,000, which I think in
contemporary terms is probably a better number, or a more
legitimate number, than $250,000. I noticed the Veterans'
Affairs Committee is concerned with this number and has
suggested maybe just going up to $300,000. But this is
basically a program that is paid for by the service personnel,
and they would not be required to take the upper limits,
although they would get the extra hostile fire pay if they were
killed in hostile fire.
What are your thoughts about that? What difficulties or
problems do you see in raising the life insurance from $250,000
to $400,000?
Mr. Epley. Senator, we at the VA support the concept of
increasing the benefit in SGLI. We have looked at some
different numbers. Currently, as you indicated, the insurance
program is paid for through the premiums that are paid for by
the service men and women themselves, and the current rate is
about 6.5 cents per $1,000 of coverage in insurance. Our
estimates are that we could keep that rate if the insurance
were increased up to about $300,000 per member, and if the rate
were to go higher, we might have to increase the premium rates
per month, per member or have it subsidized. That could be done
more simply, I think, as was discussed here, through the
payment that is currently called the death gratuity.
Senator Sessions. If there is a modest increase in rate,
should they not be given an opportunity to choose to go up? How
would that adversely impact the basic insurance payments?
Mr. Epley. Certainly they should be, and they are given the
choice to choose the amount. They can choose below what is now
the maximum of $250,000 and make a designation. I trust that we
would continue to allow them to do that, and the premium rates
would be determined by the actuarial staff to just make sure it
was the fairest, most economical method for all the service men
and women.
Senator Sessions. Just briefly, I will ask any of the Vice
Chiefs here if they would like to comment on a concern that I
have heard that spouses or perhaps other designated
beneficiaries should be notified of any change or elimination
by the servicemember of the life insurance benefit. In other
words, sometimes a spouse may have a valuable insight into how
much life insurance should be taken out and whether it should
be stopped or not. Would that be a positive benefit for your
commanders as they counsel soldiers on SGLI?
Admiral Nathman. Sir, I believe there should be some
counseling about the benefits, obviously. I believe it is a
personal choice, and the personal choice is he is electing to
have a certain service level, as it were, and it is very
typical of what we do in the civilian world. So I think once
you provide the counseling with the benefits, then that should
remain a personal decision as to the level of coverage and
benefit.
Senator Sessions. What if the servicemember has taken out
life insurance, the $250,000 under current law, and decides to
just eliminate that? Should the spouse be consulted in any way
or be given notice in any way of the servicemember's choice in
that regard?
General Nyland. I would submit, sir, that I think that as
an individual, he or she ought to feel an obligation to inform
their spouse and/or a parent, or whoever the beneficiary might
be. I am not 100 percent sure how we would handle that and
still let it be the individual's notification vice whether the
command became involved. I think I would have to think about
that a little bit more as part of the study as we go forward.
Senator Sessions. Well, you never know. People make
decisions sometimes impulsively. Sometimes consulting with a
spouse would help make a better decision and might help relieve
families and children from an adverse and unwise, impetuous
decision for a few bucks a month which could, in fact,
jeopardize their family. I am not sure it would be too
burdensome if we at least asked that there be notice given to a
spouse before a policy is dropped.
General Nyland. Yes, sir. I agree with that. We certainly
encourage our members to discuss it with their family when they
make those decisions. In my own mind, I am not yet sure of the
exact mechanics of how we would do something like that.
Senator Sessions. Well, these are real-life decisions, some
of the things we discussed in this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions.
If I might just take a minute. Thank you, General Nyland,
for acknowledging that it was a joint operation in Fallujah
with the United States Army. I had a very modest role in the
Marine Corps as a uniformed officer at one time years ago.
But throughout history, the Marines and the Army have
fought side by side, I suppose most notably in World War I in
which my father participated as an Army doctor in the trenches
with the Marines who distinguished themselves at the battle of
Belleau Wood. At that time, Pershing acknowledged that they
might have some permanence in the military annals of our
history. I believe in this operation in Iraq, Desert I as well
as Desert II, the Marines and the Army have written a chapter
about jointness.
At this point, Admiral Nathman, how many thousand sailors
are in country in Iraq now?
Admiral Nathman. Well, sir, if you look at the total
theater right now, depending on the battle group or the----
Chairman Warner. Let us take in country on the ground. I
mean, it is surprising the number that are on the ground.
Admiral Nathman. Yes, sir. We are probably around the
18,000 level right now.
Chairman Warner. Correct, in country.
Admiral Nathman. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Boots on the ground.
Admiral Nathman. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq, yes, sir.
They are serving in many different ways, supporting the Army in
terms of logistics support or moving cargo or medical support.
There is a tremendous medical presence also because of our
relationship with the Marine Corps, obviously, in terms of the
type of on-scene casualty care, but also the right kind of
surgical care that has done so much to make sure that our
members survive some pretty horrific injuries.
Chairman Warner. Well, it has been a joint operation.
Magnificent.
How many on the ground in country in Iraq and Afghanistan
with you, General Moseley?
General Moseley. Mr. Chairman, we have 33,000 deployed into
the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR) for
Afghanistan and Iraq, with about 400 aircraft.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that
General Sattler, the Marine commander there in Fallujah, took
me first and foremost to the hospital operated by the Navy
Medical Corps and bragged on them extensively. I flew in and
out, as we all have, with Air Force pilots who are flying in at
risk every day.
Chairman Warner. Magnificent jointness.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask each of you about whether or not the
amount of the death gratuity should depend upon where the death
takes place. Three of you have commented either very forcefully
or more subtly against making that distinction. I want to ask
each of you that question.
General Nyland, I do not think I have to ask you that
question. I think you have basically answered it. But I gather
it is your strong feeling that there should not be a
distinction, or before any such distinction is made, that there
should be a whole lot greater consideration given to creating
that distinction. Why do you not put it in your words again?
General Nyland. Yes, sir. I agree exactly with the latter
part of your statement. I think we need to understand before we
put any distinctions on the great service of these wonderful
young men and women who wear the cloth of this Nation, either
going forward into combat, training to go to combat, or in
tsunami relief. They are all performing magnificently. I think
we have to be very cautious in drawing distinctions.
Senator Levin. It has not been made to date, and you would
not instinctively put that distinction into it.
General Nyland. No, sir, I would not.
Senator Levin. Admiral.
Admiral Nathman. Well, sir, it is kind of where the debate
started. This has often been about how we take care of the
survivors, the families, and the children. They cannot make a
distinction. I do not believe we should either. I think I am
right where Senator Sessions was, that this is such a strong
bond, this is a covenant bond with those who serve. So we
should not make a distinction. We do in terms of compensation
for people in combat. There is combat pay, there are those
kinds of things that recognize that they are actually in that
AOR in combat, but in terms of taking care of the men and women
that they leave behind, there should be no distinction.
Senator Levin. All right. Dr. Chu, I will get back to you
at the end, but General Cody.
General Cody. Sir, I agree with my comrades here. We have
discussed it at length. This is a very complex world we live in
right now. The amount of training we do is changing every day.
We have soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines, and coast guardsmen
moving all around this world. It is about service to this
country, and I think we need to be very careful about making
this $100,000 decision based upon what type of action. I would
rather err on the side of covering all deaths rather than try
to make the distinction.
Senator Levin. All right. Thank you.
General Moseley. Sir, I agree. I believe geographically we
have people in advance composite force training preparing for
combat, which in some cases is as lethal as actual combat. We
have the mechanisms in place to work with Dr. Chu and the
Department on line-of-duty assessments relative to determining
were those actual line-of-duty deaths or not. So those
mechanisms are in place, and we would welcome the opportunity
to work with the Department to finesse those details. But I
believe a death is a death, and our service men and women
should be represented that way.
Senator Levin. Now, Dr. Chu, the proposal that you have
made does make that distinction, and I am wondering if you
would comment on the statements that you have heard here this
morning, as to why that distinction is included in your----
Dr. Chu. I would be glad to. I think one of the things that
I would emphasize, as General Moseley pointed out, is that S.
77 gives the Department latitude. It does cull out training
accidents specifically in the combat-related special
compensation standard that it sets.
I do think it is a question of objectives. Our premier
objective here is to provide for those who have fallen in Iraq
and Afghanistan--to their surviving families, as I indicated in
my testimony, a total payment of $500,000.
Then I think there are a variety of other objectives that
people have spoken to. One objective asks, should we recognize
this service in a special way? If the objective is to provide
for all families, then I think one increases the emphasis on
SGLI, and perhaps picks a little different figure on what we
today call the death gratuity. I think as the witnesses have
indicated, this is an issue we will work with Congress on as to
what are our objectives are, what we want to achieve, what our
purpose is in making these various changes.
S. 77 does give the Department latitude to take a line-of-
duty approach. It is well within, as I understand it, the
language in the proposal.
Senator Levin. Is the administration's proposal in the
budget going to include that distinction?
Dr. Chu. We think that the kind of approach that Senator
Sessions and Senator Lieberman have taken in their draft, which
gives the Department latitude to recognize the wide range of
circumstances we face today and the perhaps wider range of
circumstances we face tomorrow, is the right way to go. We
would prefer not to enshrine specific choices in statute.
Senator Levin. But you are going to have to budget for
those choices, are you not?
Dr. Chu. We understand that.
Senator Levin. So is the budget that you are going to
submit going to include a distinction of that kind or not?
Dr. Chu. The immediate budgeting for this, as I understand
the plan, is to include it in our supplemental funding because
we have a significant retroactive payment we need to make.
Senator Levin. I am saying, are you going to assume the
distinction as to where the death took place in your budget
request.
Dr. Chu. That is not a decision that is before us. The
question of what the future costs will be turns importantly on
the level of hostilities. That is not a foreseeable event at
this stage.
Senator Levin. But is the retroactive payment that is going
to be in the budget going to make the distinction which we
talked about?
Dr. Chu. The Department's approach on these payments will
be to propose they be financed as part of the supplemental
financing. Therefore, we will finance them as they occur,
whatever rules are adopted on this point.
Senator Levin. Does that mean you have not made the
decision on retroactivity?
Dr. Chu. No, sir. We support the principle of
retroactivity.
Senator Levin. But are you going to apply retroactivity to
deaths which occurred anywhere to people on Active-Duty during
this period or only in the areas of Iraq and----
Dr. Chu. As I think the subject matter of this morning's
hearing emphasizes, we have no authority at the moment to pay
anything beyond the current level of what people call a death
gratuity. We are seeking higher limits for both SGLI and the
death gratuity. Whatever rules pertain to those payments,
obviously, we will follow in our budgeting practices, but we
support the kind of flexibility Senator Sessions has built into
his bill.
Senator Levin. I do not think that you have answered the
question, because you have to make an assumption in the budget
one way or the other when it comes to retroactive deaths. So,
of course, you are going to follow the law, but you are going
to make a proposal relative to the budget which is going to
assume one way or the other, and I do not think you have
answered the question.
Dr. Chu. The larger assumption in making a budgetary
forecast is what is the level of hostilities that we are going
to confront, and that is unknowable, obviously, at the present
time.
Senator Levin. Retroactivity is very knowable.
Dr. Chu. Retroactivity is a different matter, yes, sir.
Senator Levin. My time is up.
Chairman Warner. You can have another question.
Senator Levin. Let me just ask one more, because it goes
really to the same issue. You have made the same distinction, I
believe, in the administration's proposal as to where the death
occurred as to whether or not the premium will be paid on the
life insurance. As I understand the proposal, the extra premium
for the $150,000 would be paid where the person is in the area
of hostility or the area of operation (AO).
Dr. Chu. I believe the language of Senator Sessions and
Senator Lieberman's bill is AO.
Senator Levin. Right. Is that same distinction going to be
in the administration's proposal relative to the life insurance
premium?
Dr. Chu. We support the notion that the provision in the
proposed legislation puts forward the idea that we ought to
provide some degree of coverage, and what we have recommended
is the change in coverage that is being advanced here this
morning for a servicemember, even if he or she declines the
SGLI program. That is the purpose of this feature of the
package. For those who have already elected it, we would, of
course, rebate or reduce their premiums accordingly.
Senator Levin. My final question goes to the issue of
whether or not we should deduct from the SBP payment, the VA
payment, and DIC payment. If we do that, we eliminate any
benefit, as I understand it, for a significant portion of our
service personnel from that VA benefit.
Mr. Epley. They are offset now.
Senator Levin. Then the offset means that there is no
benefit from that benefit for a significant percentage of our
troops. DOD's plan, is actually--if we are going to deduct the
VA benefit from it, it does not leave them with any benefit
from it at all.
Now, my question is this. In what percentage do we know,
Dr. Chu, of the cases where we have death benefits paid, these
annuity benefits, and where there is this deduction of the one
from the other does that mean, in effect, there is only one
annuity? Do we know what percentage?
Dr. Chu. I will need to get that number for the record for
you, Senator.
Senator Levin. Could it be as many as half?
Dr. Chu. I do not know off the top of my head, Senator. I
think this question of the offset raises much broader issues
that go beyond the care of deceased servicemembers. Offsets are
built into the Social Security system, both in private pension
plans and public plans. As Mr. Epley testified, the DIC is paid
to 212,000 survivors. That is much bigger than the casualty
group in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think we are opening a much
bigger window, and a much bigger debate if we want to look at
the offset issue.
People who select DIC do get a benefit from it. That
payment, as you have noted and others have noted this morning,
is tax-free, which is not true of the SBP amounts.
Senator Levin. Our quick analysis is that a married
servicemember who is an E-4, 23 years of age, that the spouse
would get no benefit whatsoever if the SBP annuity benefit is
offset by the DIC benefit.
Dr. Chu. That is likely.
Senator Levin. I think it is important to us that we know
what these numbers are.
Dr. Chu. We would be delighted to get those numbers for
you, Senator.
[The information referred to follows:]
There are about 275,000 families receiving Survivor Benefits Plans
(SBP) benefits. Of these, roughly 21,000 (7.6 percent) have a reduced
benefit as a result of the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC)
offset. Another 25,000 (9 percent) have total offsets and receive only
DIC. In all of these cases, the spouse was refunded all premiums paid
for the portion of SBP no longer payable. The effect is to pay the
surviving spouses of participating members first with any free coverage
through DIC with an increase for any SBP above that, charging premiums
only for the added amount of SBP actually payable.
Senator Levin. Thank you very much, Dr. Chu, and thank you
for your service. I join our chairman in thanking you.
Apparently you are going to be leaving at some point fairly
soon, from what he says, and I want to join him in thanking you
for your service to the country.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
the administration for coming forward with this initiative. I
think it is obvious that there is unanimity within Congress
that we need to act on this compelling issue.
Dr. Chu, can we expect specific legislation from the DOD,
or do we wait until legislation is generated here?
Dr. Chu. It is our intent, sir, with our transmission of
legislative language, which follows the budget, to send our
proposed----
Senator McCain. A specific legislative proposal.
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir, it is our intent to do so.
Senator McCain. Which I am sure the chairman will act on
very quickly.
Chairman Warner. That is with the main budget? We talked
about the supplemental option here. I think Senator McCain's
question is very important in terms of timing. If it is the
desire of the leadership of Congress, that is, on the Senate
side, to try and do the supplemental, I would urge that you
consider the timing of your submission.
Dr. Chu. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that guidance.
Senator McCain. Also, Dr. Chu, there are differences in the
Guard and Reserve with the way they are paid and the way they
handle retirement, et cetera. I would imagine the Guard and
Reserves will be included in this as well in every way.
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. The nature of this conflict is different
than any other--by the way, I also want to associate myself
with the uniformed people's remarks here. This kind of conflict
has a gray area. B-2 bombers flew from the United States to
combat missions in Afghanistan. If a B-2 had crashed on landing
in the United States, that is a combat mission. So I think we
have to make this legislation all-encompassing, otherwise we
would be in enormous gray areas which would be, first,
difficult to define and, second of all, as the uniformed
witnesses have testified here, all these men and women in the
military are in this together, no matter where they are.
But the nature of this conflict is such that there are much
larger instances of wounds that require amputations. This,
obviously, is a significant disability for any American,
although the recovery exhibited by many of these young men and
women is remarkable. But it makes for a very difficult life in
the future.
General Nyland, General Hagee briefed me on a program that
the Marine Corps has, which I think is important, and I
understand the other Services do not have anything quite like
it. It is called the Marine for Life Program. Would you
describe that for the committee? Because I think that somehow
we ought to either legislatively, financially, or some other
way encourage this type of program.
General Nyland. Yes, sir. The Marine for Life is a program
that we started some time ago to celebrate the honorable
service of any marine returning to society. It is designed,
through the use of hometown links and our inspector and
instructor staffs, to help a young marine reestablish himself
or herself in the civilian community through the resources of
the hometown link and the people.
What we have done most recently is to expand that to a
second phase that we call Injured Support Program. In this
regard, we are basically trying to help these disabled marines
not only with resettlement into society but also to get through
all the bureaucracy and red tape that allows them to get their
ready-to-go. So this entails----
Senator McCain. Tell us how it works, General.
General Nyland. Yes, sir. We are putting a staff officer
over at the VA. We will work individually with our marines, in
essence, in individual case management, to take them through
the medical evaluation and the performance evaluation boards,
so that we link them quickly with the VA so there is no break
in the pay between the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS) pay system and the VA pay system. In essence, we assist
the marine with that transition until he or she is back where
he or she wants to be, a useful member of society.
Senator McCain. Someone who has suffered the loss of a limb
has some difficulty in their readjustment and acquiring
sufficient vocational skills. Do you believe that this
legislation addresses that problem sufficiently? I will begin
with you, General Nyland, and ask the other witnesses.
General Nyland. Sir, I actually believe that is beyond the
scope of this particular legislation, but I certainly share
your concern because these are magnificent young men and women.
As you have pointed out, in many cases their recoveries are
remarkable, some to include returning to Active-Duty and combat
again. It is a life-changing event, and the education is an
area that I think we have to look very closely at as we look at
this package of benefits that goes to the disabled veterans, as
well as those who regrettably lose their lives.
Senator McCain. I go to you next, General Cody.
General Cody. Yes, sir. We have a program very similar to
the Marines and call ours DS3 that we stood up in recognition
of the wounds you are talking about, Senator. Armor that we are
providing our soldiers and marines today in ground combat is
saving lives, but we have a significant number of amputees and
other serious injuries. To date, we have about 271 Active Guard
and Reserve soldiers that are in the DS3 program, some double
amputees, and we are working very closely with the VA on
working the transition and benefits.
But DS3 is a 5- to 10-year commitment by the Army to each
one of these soldiers and their families to not only take care
of their health care, but also their financial care. It starts
when the soldier arrives at Landstuhl, coming out of theater.
We have a cell there. We have a cell at Brooke, as well as
Walter Reed, and we have just hired on about 54 case workers to
handle each one of these individual soldiers, plus their family
members.
I also agree with General Nyland. It is outside the scope
of what we are talking about today, but it is something that we
have to come back and look at.
We are looking at our regulations. We have several soldiers
right now that are amputees that we put back on Active-Duty.
One sergeant, in particular, lost his right leg above the knee
and is serving now as a master sergeant. He is a combat medic.
His name is Sergeant Luis Rodriguez. He lost it in Mosul. He is
still on Active-Duty, and he is now a combat medic trainer
there at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. We are looking at our
regulations, because there are certainly technical advances in
the prothesis devices that we are providing our servicemembers.
We also are looking at other things. We have also teamed
the Helping Our Heroes Foundation with our DS3 program, which
is a separate foundation that teams with industry. For those
that we do transition or they elect to transition out of the
military, our case workers will follow and team them up with
some of our larger corporations who have stepped forward that
are teaming with VA and getting educational benefits and help
in the family transition.
There is more we can do. Like I say, we are dealing with
about 271 cases right now. We have had over 7,200 wounded
during this fight, and we are looking at each case individually
and making sure that we are doing it. But I think it is outside
the scope right now of what we are dealing with here, but it is
something that probably deserves a better look.
General Moseley. Senator, thanks for that question.
We are attempting to poach as many good ideas as we can
from the Marine Corps program, which is outstanding. We have a
program. We have had 166 airmen severely injured. We have had
145 return to Active-Duty as amputees. We have 20 right now
awaiting medical evaluation boards, and we think 16 of them
will be returned to Active-Duty. Of the 166 wounded, we have
only had one that we have had to discharge and that was a
double amputee that actually wanted to go to school.
Of the 145, we have amputees back on Active-Duty, to
include some of our special operations guys who have been
responsible for working with the Army on reducing the load of
the packs, bettering the com gear, et cetera.
When we have a wounded airman, we have a casualty
assistance representative from U.S. Air Forces, Europe (USAFE)
that meets with that person at Landstuhl and stays with that
person when we get them back to Walter Reed, Bethesda, or
Malcolm Grove. Then we have a person permanently assigned to
that injured airman that stays with him through the next set of
processes, to include the medical evaluation board.
Senator, we are partnering with the VA, but I can tell you
where we can do better. When a person separates and goes to a
small community, there are certainly less opportunities in a
small community for continued care. We are beginning to look at
opportunities to partner with the other services to see if
there is not something that we can pool better, whether it is
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) or whether it is some agencies
out there in smaller communities to make this better for our
folks. That is the piece where we think we can do better. We do
not have an answer for you yet, but we are working on that.
Admiral Nathman. Senator McCain, we do have continuing care
for our sailors. In fact, what I think is interesting is the
continuing care that we are talking about includes the Marine
Corps. We get the Marine Corps' severely injured ready for that
decision about Marine for Life, as they transition into
civilian life. We have a very interesting and good relationship
with the Army at Walter Reed because they are particularly good
at prothesis care and transitioning those severely injured
marines and sailors into the right type of prosthetic device
that allows them to do what they need to do.
But to answer your question directly, I do not believe this
legislation covers that matter, but the question is certainly a
very good one about how we want to go look at this to make sure
we are doing the right thing by our people. Does it imply the
right type of relationship with our organizations like American
Legion or VFW and imply a different relationship with the VA? I
believe your question means that we ought to scrutinize this
and look for the opportunities to do the right thing by our
severely injured sailors and marines that transition to
civilian life.
Our goal has been to try and return our severely injured
back to Active-Duty. One of the questions that is implied in
that, is what are we doing to make sure that we are stimulating
those young men and women to do that besides just taking care
of their attendant physical needs.
Thank you, sir.
Senator McCain. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we probably have
to look at this more in the future, but from my conversations,
it is one of the biggest issues that many of these young men
and women face.
By the way, I think it is noteworthy that $10 million is
being expended on an amputee rehabilitation facility out at
Walter Reed. It may be a little overdue, but the fact is I do
not think we ever anticipated this element in war. I believe
that people should be assured that whatever is necessary, we
will fund to care for these people.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I thank you for bringing that up, Senator
McCain. I have the privilege of joining with Secretary
Wolfowitz today at the designation of the military severely
injured joint support operations center, a new concept that is
being set up. I appreciate you bringing that important subject
to the attention of the members here at this hearing this
morning. Thank you.
Mr. Nelson has departed I see. Then, Mr. Dayton, I believe
you are next.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to commend my colleagues who have sponsored this
important legislation, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of a
couple of those initiatives.
I want to associate myself with the comments of the
distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin, about this
coverage including all servicemembers serving in all locations
and whose deaths occur under all circumstances. I agree with
what he said, that someone who is killed in a training
exercise--and I have had that experience with a couple of
Minnesotans since I joined the Senate and served on this
committee--their losses are just as immense as those families
who lost servicemembers in combat areas. So I do not think it
is appropriate to distinguish one type of death from another.
Dr. Chu, your testimony about the various kinds of coverage
is very helpful. I do not mean to quibble here, but if
servicemembers are carrying their own life insurance through a
group policy, if they are paying what you say are modest
premiums, to the extent that that is not subsidized by the
Government, I would question whether that can be fairly termed
a Government-provided benefit. Anybody can do that, and
probably should do that, in almost any occupation, especially
if they have a family, anywhere in this society. If they are
paying their own premiums, for the Government to claim that as
a benefit seems to me inflates this number quite dramatically.
It would be appropriate, to the extent that it is being
subsidized, but not to the extent that the individual is paying
that cost himself or herself.
Dr. Chu. It is, as you are aware, Senator, subsidized. The
Department picks up all risks beyond normal peacetime risks,
war risks especially, and as you point out, training risks are
important in that regard. So someone who was a flyer could not
buy this insurance at this rate commercially.
Senator Dayton. What percent of the premium for somebody
serving in a combat area is paid by the individual?
Dr. Chu. We basically pay all the combat deaths.
Senator Dayton. I am sorry?
Dr. Chu. We basically pay all the combat deaths. It does
not work quite that way mechanically, but that is the practical
import.
Senator Dayton. When you talk about the administration's
proposal at the end here that would increase the coverage to
$400,000, that additional $150,000 insurance would be funded by
the Government when the member is serving in an AO designated
by the Secretary of Defense?
Dr. Chu. That is correct.
Senator Dayton. Again, you would pay that. But if the
individual under this proposal were serving in a noncombat zone
and was killed while in service, that would not apply?
Dr. Chu. They would still be eligible for the $400,000. I
think that is the important point that we are trying to
emphasize here. We need, as Senator Sessions' and Senator
Lieberman's bill does, to raise SGLI's number. It has not been
addressed for a while. We need to provide the surviving
families, as you suggest, regardless of circumstance, with a
larger bequest so they can deal with their issues in a cohesive
way. So we would like to get SGLI increased. I think that is
the first big point I would like to emphasize this morning.
Second, we would like to make the increment something the
Government pays for in an AO designated by the Secretary. That
is intended specifically to deal with combat areas. It is also
intended to deal with individuals who--they are small in
number--but a few do decline. Then as Senator Sessions'
questions suggest about should the spouses be consulted, there
is substantial regret ex post. So we are trying to begin to
create a little bit of a different construct here with this
package. I think his bill has exactly that feature in it, if I
recall it correctly. We celebrate that.
Senator Dayton. Especially, again, people with families,
the cost factor, depending again how much the individual is
paying and how much the military is paying----
Dr. Chu. The charge for that $250,000 I believe is $16.25 a
month, and I think most people view that as a bargain.
Senator Dayton. You mentioned also the ability to remain in
military housing for 6 months. Is that the same housing that
the family is in presently on base?
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir.
Senator Dayton. Okay, so they have that option. Do you
think 6 months is sufficient time? I have heard concerns
expressed by a couple of surviving spouses whose children are
in school. This is their support system. These are their
friends, the other spouses, their children's friends. Is 6
months sufficient time?
Dr. Chu. The Government's benefit actually is more generous
than just the military housing. We either allow them to stay in
their housing, if that is their choice, or if they are already
receiving or prefer to receive their housing allowance, we do
that for 6 months. So this is, I think, a very sound package.
It provides a good transition for them. My understanding is the
Services manage this with extraordinary compassion.
General Cody. If I might add, Senator.
Senator Dayton. Yes, sir.
General Cody. I have commanded a post, and we had this
situation arise several times. The way the policy and
regulation are written, the post commander has the authority to
extend in those types of cases, and so it is not open-ended,
but he has the ability to deal with the family's situation
because none of them are all the same. I have never heard of
one who did not extend it.
Senator Dayton. Is that true in all Service branches?
General Nyland. Yes.
General Moseley. Yes.
Senator Dayton. I think that's appropriate.
Chairman Warner. Senator Dayton, that is a very important
question. I want the record to reflect the acknowledgement of
each of the Vice Chiefs to your question as to whether or not
there is uniformity in that policy. So if you would just ask
each individual.
Senator Dayton. Could I ask each of you then to respond for
the record please?
General Moseley. It is the same in the Air Force, sir.
Senator Dayton. Thank you.
Admiral Nathman. I would like to make sure of my facts,
sir, but yes, sir.
Senator Dayton. Thank you.
General Nyland. I believe that is also the case for the
Marine Corps, sir.
Senator Dayton. All right. Thank you.
I believe I have visited with all the Minnesota families
who have lost servicemembers, and generally speaking, I would
say their comments support what you said in your testimony
about the quality of the notification. I will--and I would be
remiss if I did not, because I just met with this family just a
couple weeks ago, whose son was serving in the Marine Corps and
was visited by a couple of service men, but not accompanied by
a chaplain. The mother was distraught because she asked if the
body had been anointed, and the servicemembers did not know
what that meant. Again, I am not trying to--in my position 99
percent of the things go well, and I hear about 1 percent, and
I usually get it in a public setting, so I cringe. But I would
be remiss if I did not take the opportunity just to ask you to
review that policy and make sure that there are chaplains
involved and that those who are doing this very difficult work
are trained and trained not only with a manual, but in grief
counseling because I think this is hugely important and it
makes a huge impact. It is irreversible if it is not handled
properly.
General Nyland. Yes, sir. I certainly share your concern. I
am unaware of that, but I will certainly look into that because
we want this to be done properly for the families.
Senator Dayton. I can give you the names of the family if
you want to check it out.
General Nyland. Yes, sir.
Senator Dayton. But again, I think it is an aberration in
the Marines and the Army. I have heard uniformly from the
families real gratitude at the proper notification, and the
support they received. But I do want to put it on the record.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me start by thanking you for scheduling this
hearing so early in the session. I think that demonstrates your
commitment to moving this important legislation.
I also want to congratulate my colleagues, particularly
Senator Sessions, Senator Allen, Senator Lieberman, and Senator
Nelson, for their leadership on this important issue.
As the chairman is well aware, I have long supported an
increase in the payment that is made to the families of those
who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. During
the last Congress, I was, in fact, the chief Senate sponsor of
legislation to double the death gratuity and to make it tax-
free. That was, however, only a very modest first step and an
inadequate one. I am very pleased to see the growing consensus
that we should enact significant legislation in this regard. It
is terrific to hear the administration's support for doing that
promptly, as well.
Dr. Chu, there have been disturbing reports of confusion
among some military personnel regarding the amount of their
insurance benefits and even more troubling reports of
unscrupulous financial salesmen and women having access to our
military bases and peddling very expensive and often unneeded
insurance products to our troops. This is very troubling
because the insurance program that is already available to them
is a very good one and a relatively inexpensive one, and the
passage of Senator Sessions' bill will make it an even better
program.
What efforts are being undertaken to inform our troops of
the benefits of the insurance programs and to give them
guidance so that they can make informed choices regarding their
insurance purchases? Obviously, if they feel they need
additional insurance, they have every right to purchase it, but
this is troubling if they are being talked into buying
superfluous or very expensive insurance products that they
really do not need.
My second and related question is, when the legislation is
enacted, as I believe it will be, to improve the insurance
benefits, how will the DOD act to quickly inform our troops of
the new benefits?
Dr. Chu. Ma'am, as I think you are aware, over 2 years ago,
we launched in the Department for this reason and other
reasons, what we call a financial readiness campaign, that
basically is an effort to ensure that our people, for whom
often this is their first posting, so to speak, after school,
about how to manage their finances broadly, including the
insurance issue.
We have been working for almost 2 years to change the
Department's regulations in terms of the unscrupulous salesman
issue, as you correctly point out. Unfortunately, we are under
an injunction that is part of the last appropriations act that
does not allow us to move forward with that directive until
after the GAO renders its report, which is not expected until
June 2005. If I could plead for one thing in this domain that
you properly raised, if indeed our action is the vehicle for
change, perhaps we could get that prohibition against action
removed so we can start to deal more effectively with the
unscrupulous actor.
Senator Collins. So the administration would support doing
away with that rider. Is that correct?
Dr. Chu. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Collins. That limits your ability to deal with this
problem.
Dr. Chu. Under present law, we cannot deal with this until
after the GAO renders its report.
Senator Collins. But surely you could undertake efforts to
make sure that the troops are better informed and have
increased financial awareness. I understand that the injunction
limits your ability to perhaps cut off access to the troops,
but in many ways, this is an educational issue. It is a
financial sophistication or awareness campaign that is needed.
Dr. Chu. We agree with you completely and that is why 2
years ago, we launched the financial readiness campaign. We can
do a great deal. We are doing a great deal. I think individual
base commanders are improving their policies. I particularly
praise the approach that the Fort Benning commander has taken
in this regard. Yes, ma'am, we can do a lot to educate people
on our own without a change in the statute, but we would
appreciate a revocation of the rider.
Senator Collins. General Cody, do you have anything you
would like to add to this?
General Cody. Yes. I think, first off, I agree with Dr. Chu
that we need to do more. Having commanded a large post, I can
tell you that every time, when a soldier enlists, when they go
to the training base, whatever training base they go to, they
get financial guidance. Now, these are young soldiers, and it
takes a lot of discussion about why you need insurance. Some of
them do not want to buy insurance for their car, and so we have
to work through all that. Of course, we have regulations that
you cannot register your car on post unless you get insurance,
and so each post has that and we are working it hard.
At each one of our posts, camps, and stations, soldiers,
after they come out of their training base, have a 7- to 10-day
transition period before they go to their units, and they have
financial management classes at Fort Campbell that I am
familiar with in which we give them the SGLI briefing. It is
not just a 1-hour briefing. It is a whole discussion about what
it means, especially if you are married. We give them the same
type of briefing to watch out for people that bird dog you,
quite frankly, for insurance, and other characters are out
there trying to do that. They also get classes on how to buy
cars. It is a full financial management program that we have
been doing so that they fully understand what they need to. I
think it is not where it should be, but it is certainly much
better than when I joined several years ago.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I hope, as we mark up this legislation, that
we will take a look at that issue as well. Again, I commend you
for moving so quickly on this important issue.
Chairman Warner. I would ask, Senator, that you and other
Senators that you know of that have a particular interest in
this unscrupulous situation--and that is not to cast aspersions
against a lot of, I think, perfectly bona fide individuals who
come on board base and work, but there is an element that we
should address. Could you give me your best advice as to how we
should handle this?
Senator Collins. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I thank you very much.
Senator Collins. I spent 5 years in State government
overseeing the insurance regulations. So I would be happy to
assist in this area.
Chairman Warner. So you have a background in this. Thank
you very much, Senator Collins.
[The prepared statement of Senator Collins follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Susan M. Collins
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for scheduling this session
on this topic so early in the session.
I have long supported an increase in the payment made to the family
of those who have lost their lives in service to our country. During
the 108th Congress, I was proud to be the Senate sponsor of legislation
to double the death gratuity to $12,000 and make it tax free, a modest
first step. I would like to reiterate my support for the measures
before us today. Like all Americans, I have been greatly saddened by
the loss of life in recent days during our operations in Iraq, and I
commend my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for working together
to again increase this benefit in this Congress, as well.
As illustrated this past weekend during the elections in Iraq, our
military forces continue their noble dedication to advancing freedom
and democracy even in the most difficult circumstances. The successful
and truly historic elections in Iraq are a credit to their dedication
and professionalism.
The young men and women of our military represent the very best our
Nation has to offer. They do not join the military for monetary gain
nor to have a comfortable lifestyle. They serve our Nation out of a
sense of patriotism that should make each and every American proud. The
patience and dedication they have shown during the months leading up to
and through the election process are testament to the strength of
character that is the core of our military values. In many cases, we
ask our own troops to take additional risks in order to avoid injuring
or killing innocent civilians. That they do this without question or
regret speaks well not only of our military, but of our country.
When we send a young man or woman into harm's way, our Nation has
in return a sacred obligation to them and to their families. We must
ensure they go forth with the complete confidence, should the worst
happen and they are called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice, that
their country will care for their families and honor their service.
The death gratuity is a small token, but it assists the grieving
families with their immediate financial needs. There are a variety of
other programs that provide for longer-term support, but in the initial
hours and days after a family has endured such a terrible loss, these
funds help to alleviate monetary concerns. This benefit is commonly
provided within 72 hours to the family of the servicemember who is
killed while on Active-Duty.
Brigadier General John Libby, the Adjutant General of the Maine
National Guard, recently wrote to me in support of this legislative
initiative. More than 65 percent of Maine's Army National Guard force
structure has now been mobilized and deployed in support of the global
war on terrorism. Brigadier General Libby wrote, ``Behind every
dedicated servicemember is a dedicated service family who deserves to
be taken care of in the event of the loss of their servicemember. The
level of the current benefit package is not sufficient but this
corrective action will honor those who serve us on a daily basis.''
We can never fully repay the debt of our proud Nation to those who
have laid down their lives. The best we can do is honor their memory,
ensure that their sacrifice is not in vain, and help provide for their
families. We must continue to assure our brave young men and women that
their Nation is grateful for their service. I look forward to hearing
your testimony and to working with my colleagues to ensure that we move
forward to ensure that the families of those brave service men and
women who give their lives for our country are properly cared for.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator Lieberman, thank you for your
patience.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a
very helpful hearing. I want to go back to the line of
questioning that Senator McCain opened up about those wounded
in action (WIA) because I do think, thanks to the
administration announcement today, that we have a real strong
consensus on the need for and, in fact, how to better care for
the survivors of those killed in action (KIA). We have some
details to work out, but we are going to do it, and it is clear
we are going to do it with a real sense of urgency, and that is
absolutely right.
I think it is appropriate to focus on those WIA. We know
that we are operating in a circumstance in which the rate of
survival for injury is much higher in the conflicts we are
involved in now because of the extraordinary advances in
medical science and technology and, to the great credit of the
Pentagon and the Services, the extent to which the Services
have embraced and implemented all those advances in medicine
and medical technology. So it means we have people, thankfully,
who are surviving but with very serious injuries and
disabilities. I think we have to make sure we are doing our
best for them.
It leads me to ask, just as a question of information for
myself, if not for other members of the committee, because some
of them are clearly not--I want to stop here. I know I have
admiration but I am in awe of the numbers of those injured who
remain on Active-Duty. It is nothing short of inspirational.
But they are going to come to a moment where they are going to
leave the Service. They go back to civilian life. Some of them
are going to have impaired earning capacity because of the
injury they suffered while serving on our behalf.
What do we do for them or their families? We are focused on
survivors. Now, these are, fortunately, not survivors. These
are the families. They are dependents. What do we do for them
economically when they come out with an income-impairing
disability for medical service? I leave it to whomever wants to
respond.
Dr. Chu. I think I would let Mr. Epley answer that because
that really is a keystone of the VA's program.
Mr. Epley. Yes, sir. Senator, we do have programs that are
intended to address the income loss. The most significant of
those programs is our disability compensation program which
will pay to the veteran, based on the degree of disability,
from 10 percent, which is $108 a month, up to a 100 percent
benefit, which is about $2,290 per month, and additional
amounts for their dependents.
Senator Lieberman. What is it based on? Their service
salary compensation or is it a set amount?
Mr. Epley. No, sir. It is based on the degree of their
disability. We do a formal medical evaluation of their
disability and assess it, and based on our evaluation, be they
100 percent or 50 percent disabled, we set the pay rate. You
set the pay rate in law, sir.
Senator Lieberman. So if there is a change, it is up to us.
What I am saying is, it is a percent of what? In other words,
in a lot of circumstances, clearly if somebody is injured in an
accident, as a matter of court procedure, the award is based on
the potential earning capacity of that person prior to the
accident.
Mr. Epley. It is similar in the VA, sir. We have a rating
schedule of disabilities, which is codified in title 38 of the
U.S. Code, and it describes all of the various body systems and
the disability evaluation criteria that will be used for each
disability suffered by a serviceman. That is how we set the
level of disability and the level of payment to be given.
May I add one more thing? You asked about if they have
earning incapacitation. We do have a vocational rehabilitation
program as well at VA. It is geared specifically to help those
men and women who come back from service who have a disability
that might affect their earning capacity. We case-manage those
men and women. We try to work with the military departments to
identify them, as soon as they are separating, and offer them
means to determine not only what their desires are in future
earnings, but also what their aptitudes are and try to engineer
a program to bring back their earning capacity where it would
be. We rehabilitate a little over 10,000 veterans a year
through that program.
Senator Lieberman. That is very reassuring. I think we
ought to, Mr. Chairman, stay on top of that. I invite you--I am
sure all the committee would--to come to us if you think we are
not fulfilling our responsibility to those who are severely
disabled as a result of service.
I want to ask another question about this. Periodically, as
I am sure you know as well or better than we, there is a flurry
in the media that we are not providing enough benefits to the
WIA when they are in, for instance, Walter Reed. There was a
flurry. We got calls a while back that we were not paying for
their phone calls, at one point that the WIA had to pay for
their meals. I wonder, General Cody, since we have you here if
you would help clarify some of that for us.
General Cody. As I stated earlier, Senator--and I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. This is all part of
taking care of not just the soldier's wounds, but the financial
care that we need to provide immediately to the family of that
soldier because they have to travel, and in many cases, some of
them work. Some have to pay for child care and everything else.
So we are picking all that up, as soon as we can get with it,
and fully understand, because each case is entirely different.
We have the Mologne House. We have the Fisher House.
We have quickly reacted to this, since Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and we keep
learning the different permutations of challenges that each
individual family has so we can compensate for them. I think we
are really doing a much better job than we have in the past on
this. Each time we see some of these issues, we work through
them.
Senator Lieberman. Are we taking care of their phone calls,
for instance, and the meals?
General Cody. Yes, sir. We are taking care of their phone
calls. In fact, we are even, in most cases, not stopping the
compensation they had when they left Iraq for the first 90
days, and we are doing that across the board. We are also
working with DFAS, which is very complex. We are working
directly with that so that the soldier or the family does not
have to deal with it. We have a case worker dealing with it to
ensure that the computer does not automatically start
deducting. We have had those problems where all of a sudden the
computer picks up the fact that they are no longer in Iraq, but
oh, by the way, we paid you for 6 months and automatically
started deducting. We have had several cases of that early on.
So now we are putting the case worker in the loop, to take care
of it.
One of the other things we are doing, as I said earlier, is
teaming with Helping Our Heroes Foundation, which is a separate
foundation that provides all the other benefits that we cannot
do right now because of statute.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you. That is very reassuring.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I just want to add something I
was just thinking as we were talking about the financial
benefits we want to provide to the survivors. There is sort of
an emotional benefit as well. I have had the experience very
often talking to survivors of soldiers, particularly from
Connecticut, who have been killed in action where they will say
please see this through to a successful conclusion in Iraq so
that I will never believe that my son or daughter or husband or
wife died in vain. I just saw a soldier from Walter Reed, I
believe, on the TV the other night, who had lost a limb, saying
watching the Iraqis vote on Sunday made him feel that what he
had done had not been in vain. It was very moving. It is
another kind of benefit that we can provide by sticking
together until this is successfully concluded.
General Moseley. Senator Lieberman, can I follow up with
another piece of this?
Senator Lieberman. Please.
General Moseley. Our experience in dealing with our kids
that are at Walter Reed and Bethesda is as much a family issue
as it is anything. Dick and the rest of us do the same things.
We get up to three family members. We fly them to the location,
in this case Walter Reed for us, and we cover those expenses
for 30 days. We can waiver that beyond 30 days. We have a
special care provider assigned to that member and that family
to ensure that those things that you are talking about do not
happen. Whether they are in the Fisher House or whether they
are in some other sets of quarters, we are with that family and
that member every day. So we cover three family members flown
at our expense, and up to 30 days. You can extend that as
necessary.
Senator Lieberman. It is very reassuring. Thank you all
very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Lieberman, for early on
getting out on this basic legislation we are addressing today.
Thank you for bringing up in this colloquy the questions of
family participation. All of us, I think, have been to Walter
Reed, Bethesda, and other military hospitals. I remember,
Senator Clinton, you and I joined way early in your first stop
as a member of the Armed Services Committee, and we went
together.
I also would like to have the record reflect that in last
year's bill this committee put in an encouragement, based on
our visitations at the hospital, including a reference to the
many times that all of us have experienced the wounded saying,
Senator, what can you do so that I can stay in the military
even though I have lost an arm or a limb or other injury. But
these old gray hairs indicate I have sort of reached back a
little bit in this system, and I cannot recall a period in
history where I have seen the returning soldiers more anxious
to remain in the military. It is a tremendous sense of pride
for their families and themselves.
General, you perhaps have the largest group. What has been
your experience as a consequence of the legislation we put in
last year on this?
General Cody. It has been very helpful not only in
execution but in tone and tenor. It sends the right message.
You are right. The first thing these soldiers, airmen, marines,
and sailors that get WIA want to do is get back to their unit.
There is a tremendous bond of a band of brothers and sisters.
Over time, our experience shows that many want to stay, and
then, many come to the conclusion that they want to move on to
other things. But knowing upfront that there is that window and
that possibility, our doctors say it really helps them
initially during their rehabilitation, that there is no
finality, no ``I cannot go back to this way of life.'' So I
think it has been extremely helpful.
As I have told you, we have put several of our
noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and officers back to Active-
Duty already. One captain is going back into combat. He lost
his right limb. You visited him from the 3rd Armored Cavalry
Regiment, Dave Rozelle. The first thing he said to me, as well
as to other people, when we saw him up there after the first
fight, was ``I want to stay in the Army.'' I am proud to report
to you in about a month and a half, he will deploy with the 3rd
Armored Cavalry Regiment again as the commander of headquarters
and Headquarters Troop.
Chairman Warner. Without the benefit of one arm. Is that
correct?
General Cody. This is the one with the missing right leg,
sir.
Chairman Warner. Oh, leg.
General Cody. Yes, sir. He also ran in a marathon. So it
speaks to what this country can provide, in terms of medical
care and everything else.
I firmly believe it has been very helpful. I know all of
our Services are looking at our medical evaluation board
procedures and our physical evaluation board procedures because
those things were written in the 1970s and 1980s and, quite
frankly, they do not deal with the great medical care that this
country can provide. So we are looking at each case
individually. I know we are all committed to not let them leave
Service until we know they are making the right decision, that
we have given them everything, and then we work the
transitions. So I feel very positive about it.
General Nyland. Sir, if I might add, I certainly share
that. We have already one marine who lost an ankle and a foot
in Afghanistan who is on duty in Iraq, and they are marvelous,
marvelous young people. The advances in the prosthetics, for
those who want to stay and can contribute can stay, due to the
committee's action. It absolutely makes a difference.
Chairman Warner. This committee stands by to receive any
legislative proposals, Dr. Chu, to greater enhance that
opportunity for these marvelous young people.
Dr. Chu. We appreciate that, sir.
Chairman Warner. I take note of the fact that maybe some of
our procedures are slightly outdated. I hope before you leave,
you would take that on as one of your highest priorities,
because you draw on a long experience in working in the DOD.
Dr. Chu. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. That might be one of your hallmark
achievements to make sure that record is right up to date.
General Moseley. Mr. Chairman, can I add one more piece to
that?
Chairman Warner. Yes, of course.
General Moseley. Dr. Chu has been a big partner in helping
us with this. Every single kid that we have talked to, his
first question is, I want to stay in the Air Force. Do not
throw me out. The second one is, I want to get back to my unit,
the same as my other brothers here. What we have also done is
if we cannot keep a person on Active-Duty, we will guarantee
them a job in the civilian sector in the Air Force. We have not
had to do that yet because we have 145 of them back on Active-
Duty. But our counselors make it very clear to them, that if we
cannot get them back to Active-Duty and if not back to that
particular unit, then we will give them a job in the civilian
sector of the Air Force. We have only had the one person that
was medically disqualified by a medical evaluation board, and
that kid is at Texas A&M University right now going to school.
Chairman Warner. I think this chapter in history also
reflects the magnificence of the people across this country.
Even though they may not have family members involved, the
support the American people are giving individually and
collectively to the men and women of the Armed Forces. For
those of us who had responsibilities during the Vietnam era,
what a stark contrast to today in the manner in which those
brave individuals returned home from Vietnam and had to face
certain hostilities which were not of their making.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad we got
into the discussion of the hospitals and of the attitudes of
the kids that are there. Senator Thune and I will be going to
Iraq at the end of this week, and we are going to be stopping
by Landstuhl. In fact, I have recommended that anyone going
over there should make that stop.
I remember so well, Admiral, my stop there. It must have
been, I guess, a couple of years ago. There was a young black
lady. She was very small in stature. You will probably remember
this. She got her leg caught in a fueling line and it took her
down. It should have killed her, the impact was incredible. But
they were trying to get her back. She could not talk except
between gasps, and all she talked about was getting back to her
ship. You hear this over and over and over again.
Senator Thune and I will be stopping by Landstuhl to bring
this message back home. I think it is so important that we do
this because I have often said we have a very unfriendly press
that does not tell us accurately what is going on there.
I might add, General Cody, when we go over--we had this
discussion on these hydration packs--we are taking a bunch of
those back to distribute when we are there.
General Cody. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. I was one of the original cosponsors of
this legislation. I am very supportive of it. We have talked
about this, and I have my own ideas about when you should raise
the core benefits. Yet there are those, even under the passage
of this bill--well, actually depending what provisions are
accepted that are going to say whether or not individuals are
going to be able to get an enhanced death benefit, a lot of it
is tied to the idea of whether or not they reject the
insurance. I am talking about out-of-combat zones. The
rejection of that has to be done and signed by the troops. We
talked about this earlier. What about the beneficiaries? What
about the wives?
It is not unprecedented that they sign. Under the
retirement benefit plan, wives have to sign, the same as the
individual. I have some fairly strong feelings that we ought to
comply with that and make that a part of this bill.
I will not ask each one to respond to that, but if there is
anything you want to offer concerning that, do so.
Dr. Chu. Senator, if I may, I just want to reinforce the
point you made. This is not a new idea. It is a central feature
of the SBP as it currently exists, that the survivors need to
be consulted in this decision because ultimately it affects
them.
Senator Inhofe. By consulting with the spouses on the
decision--what evidence is there that they have been consulted
with?
Dr. Chu. In the SBP case, they have to actually sign saying
they understand what the military person has chosen.
Senator Inhofe. On the life insurance.
Dr. Chu. No, on the survivor benefit plan. We have no such
provision today on the life insurance.
Senator Inhofe. Okay. That is what I am referring to.
Dr. Chu. If I may, I think you and Senator Sessions and
Senator Lieberman have opened an important issue with the
provision in your proposed legislation that would require a
mechanism by which the survivors are consulted.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I think the main thing I wanted to
bring out is it is not unprecedented because we do it in
retirement plans. I will not ask the rest of you to respond to
that.
Senator McCain brought up a couple of things that were
answered for me. I think the whole idea of amputations show as
a testament to the effectiveness of the body armor. I know you
have thought about this in your own mind. Of those who have
suffered amputations, how many would be alive today if it had
not been for that. I would suggest probably not very many.
There is always a propensity, when you are talking to
elected officials, to spend more and more and more and more. I
heard something on the radio this morning. Someone was saying,
``Well, why is it not the same amount as the families that were
victims of September 11.'' You can argue that it should be. But
there has to be some kind of a line drawn. I would suggest to
my colleagues that I think we are strapped in our military in
terms of modernization, and end strength, and I do not think we
are spending enough, and I have said that many times. The more
you increase these benefits, most of that comes out of DOD. I
think we have to keep that in mind.
Now, General Cody, you may remember the case of Fern
Holland. Does that sound familiar to you? Maybe not. She was a
33-year-old Oklahoma attorney who was a civilian employee of
the Army, and she was murdered, along with another American,
Robert Zangus, in Iraq last March when their vehicle was
ambushed by gunmen. According to DOD, this young woman was a
Department of the Army civilian who was supporting OIF and
assigned to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).
Fern's sister contacted me recently and was concerned why
there was not some kind of a benefit. You could argue this. I
think that we have a tendency to open Pandora's box. There has
to be a place where you stop. So if you have civilian employees
that are actually in AORs in combat, that has to be addressed.
But then if that is addressed, then you are going to have
contract employees, even though they probably have their own
benefit plans from their companies and others.
What I would like to do is ask each one of you if you have
a response as to if we are going the right distance in the way
it is proposed by both the administration and by the Sessions
legislation.
General Nyland.
General Nyland. Yes, sir. I think it is clearly going in
the right direction. I think, as Dr. Chu articulated, the
$500,000 benefit or bequest, if you will, however that is
ultimately packaged, has parts that I think are obviously far
superior to what any of the survivors' families would receive
today. I think it is an appropriate step in the right
direction.
Admiral Nathman. Yes, sir. To your point, I understand the
demarcation or distinction here is an important part of the
debate we ought to have.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, it is.
General Cody. Senator, I agree. I think we are going in the
right area. I am now familiar with Ms. Holland. It is something
in which we have to go back and really take a look at because
in this post-major combat phase of this war, we have put an
awful lot of our Department of the Army civilians, as well as
other Department civilians, over there as part of our reset
forward in Balad and other places. They have different
packages, and I think it is worthwhile for us to go back and
absolutely take a good, hard look and make sure we are
compensating them also.
Senator Inhofe. Sure.
General Moseley. Yes, sir. We are going in the right
direction.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know my time is
expired. I would only like to echo what everyone else has said
about your duty and how much we appreciate what you have done.
I would say, particularly you, General Cody. I got to know
General Cody when he was in command of Operation Task Force
Hawk, I think it was, in Bosnia, and I watched you in action
there.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
At this point I would like to yield the chair to our
distinguished colleague, Senator Sessions, to chair the balance
of this hearing, and I call on Senator Akaka at this time.
Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Chu, I am very pleased to hear that the Joint Support
Operations Center will be up and operational today.
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir. The phone number actually already works.
Senator Akaka. I understand that people will be able to
contact the center by dialing a 1-888 number to get to the
center. I am really delighted to hear this because it will
really help families.
What did DOD do and what is it doing to promote the
services provided by the center to survivors?
Dr. Chu. We are doing the following.
Senator Sessions [presiding]. Dr. Chu, would you yield for
a second? I believe General Cody may have an engagement or a
plane to catch. If he does, please know that we know you do
have that challenge, and when the time comes, just let us know.
General Cody. I will hang in here until the tough questions
come, Mr. Senator. [Laughter.]
I appreciate your indulgence. Thank you.
Senator Sessions. Dr. Chu.
Dr. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka, we are doing three things really in terms of
making the service available. First, we are publicizing the
existence of the center with a ceremony today and other similar
steps.
Second, of course, as I would emphasize, what this center
does really is build upon the individual programs of each
military service, which have been described this morning. We
have a significant challenge in the executive branch because,
as the testimony indicates, programs come from a variety of
sources, including the VA. So it is important to have a strong
liaison with the VA.
Third, we are going to reach out proactively and make sure
we have called everybody to ensure that they have had all their
issues addressed. That will take some time. I would recognize
that will not happen overnight. But we want to be sure. There
is always a challenge with complex Government programs that no
one falls through the cracks, that everyone understands how the
various benefits and services work, and that they can take
advantage of them. I think the majority do now. The Army and
the Marine Corps have led the way with Marine for Life and DS3.
We are just trying to make sure we have left no stone unturned
in terms of the services we offer to our personnel.
Senator Akaka. Grief services are one of the kind of
services that can be given. With this center, will data be
collected and utilized to provide greater grieving services to
family survivors?
Dr. Chu. We would be delighted to look at that, Senator. I
think on that front, I particularly want to single out, as I
think Senator Dayton's comments did, what our casualty
assistance officers (CAOs) already do. They are, of course, the
ones who must bring the terrible news to a family first. I
believe they do a superb job. They are well-trained by the
military departments. Obviously, there is always an issue or
two we could improve in terms of their training. But that is
the first step I think in the grieving process. But we will
certainly look at your issue, sir.
Senator Akaka. Also, there has been some concern about
survivors' benefits, and in particular, some have raised issues
regarding the processing time for survivor benefits. Can you
mention anything about processing times?
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir. As you appreciate, there really are
three pillars to the annuity or income support benefits that a
surviving family receives. There is the survivor benefit plan,
which we have discussed. There is the VA payment, which was
mentioned. There is also Social Security. Actually, about a
year and a half ago, we partnered with Social Security to
inaugurate a new, expedited process that we think demonstrates
that can be speeded up. So it is a matter of days before that
is taken care of as opposed to weeks or months.
On the SBP, that does take a little time, typically 1 to 2
months. There are some papers the family must sign. If there
are children, the spouse must decide if she or he wishes to
elect payment of those benefits to the children. So there are
some decisions the family must make, and we try to be
thoughtful about not asking them to make that decision the next
day. So there is a lag built into the process, and then the
payments, if I recall correctly, typically are made on a
monthly basis so that it is the first of the next pay period
before you are actually going to see a check. So there are some
delays there. We are looking constantly at how we can improve
these processes and cut down on these delays.
Senator Akaka. I understand that some of the claims have
been heavy. Are there any efforts being made to accelerate the
processing time?
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir. As I indicated, we have given attention
to that the last year and a half or so. We will give continuing
attention to that issue. We would like to be sure the families
are paid as promptly as possible.
Senator Akaka. This question goes out to all the Service
Chiefs. While I understand that the DOD is dedicating the Joint
Support Operations Center today and is providing the 1-888
number to assist survivors during this difficult time, are
there other areas that we should be focusing on to help in this
transition?
Admiral Nathman. Well, sir, I would say, one area that I
feel we have focused on goes back to this relationship to the
CAO to the family. This does not terminate when a check is
signed off or when a particular transition has occurred to the
VA. I personally want to thank the VA for all they do for us in
this because of the liaison work we do with them.
But there is a very strong relationship--some people would
call it a bond--between the CAO and the family, and we have
really focused on that. We treat it as a central activity at
our Personnel Command. We make sure that the Casualty
Assistance Calls Officers (CACOs) are trained. We make sure
they understand that they can explain at a technical level and
a basic level for the members of the family. They have a strong
relationship that is sustained for as long as the family needs
that sustained relationship.
I think these are the kinds of things that serve the
family--we have coalesced it now on this center, but the intent
I believe is already being performed at our service level, and
this is just a good way now to integrate it. I think this is an
important part of our service. I think it starts and, frankly,
ends with the CACO because the relationship he forms with the
family. No one else can do that.
Mr. Epley. If I could add to that. The VA has been
mentioned in this. Senator, you asked if there are
improvements. We do defer to the DOD CAO. We do work with him
very closely, but when we get notice of the casualty or when we
get a claim, we have centralized that to our Philadelphia
center where we also do the insurance payments. We are paying
those DIC benefits now in about 3 days on average. So we really
have expedited that process by centralizing it for in-service
death.
General Nyland. I would also add that with regard to the
initiatives that Dr. Chu mentioned, the expedited claims
process (ECP) with both the VA and Social Security, we have
seen tremendous progress in making sure that those benefits are
promptly received by the surviving members. I think those
initiatives, along with the initiatives that each of the
Services has taken to include their CACOs and now the Joint
Support Operations Center, which members of our Services will
man as well so that they can turn survivors to the right source
immediately, all are pointed in that right direction, sir.
General Moseley. Senator, our casualty assistance
representative has a full-time job. That is a career field for
these folks. They are not part-time, nor do they change over.
These folks receive extensive training, and they interface with
the VA. Let me also thank the VA for being a good partner in
this. We are also exploring opportunities with the Department
of Labor so that these people will develop contacts there and
have visibility on things that are going on within the
Department of Labor. That is a new one for us, and we are just
learning what opportunities we have there.
But this comes down through all of our units down to the
lowest common denominator as a squadron or a flight, and the
first sergeants and the commanders and all the supervisors know
that this person, this casualty assistance representative, is
the point of contact for that family and the assigned person to
that member for the length of his or her care.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
In the calls I make to the families who have lost loved
ones in combat, I ask how things are going. They brag on the
casualty assistance officers. I have had people break down.
They almost become like a member of the family. They help them
and they go far beyond what you would expect them to be helping
with. I think that is something that works, and I salute you
for being true to your commitment to the families, as well as
the men and women in uniform.
Senator Thune, it is a delight to have you on the
committee. I know you wanted to be on this committee, and we
are delighted that that has occurred. You served in the House
and as a Senate staffer. So you hit the ground running. It is a
delight to have you here and it is a pleasure for me to
recognize you at this time.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me acknowledge
also that since this is my first hearing as a new member of
this very prestigious committee, what a privilege it is to
serve on the committee and to have the opportunity to serve
with you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of this committee.
The work before this committee today is perhaps the most
important responsibility that falls on the shoulders of this
great body, and that is our responsibility to our young men and
women serving in harm's way. Because we are a country at war,
the needs of our service men and women and their families must
be one of our highest priorities. We cannot put a value on the
sacrifice of those who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor
can we hope to fully compensate families for a lost husband,
wife, brother, son, or daughter. But we can do more and
hopefully we will. That is why I appreciate very much the
hearing today.
I support raising the death gratuity from $12,000 to
$100,000 for service men and women who have lost their lives in
combat and also believe it ought to be retroactive to soldiers
who have died fighting in the war on terrorism since September
11.
I think that about everything that can be asked about with
respect to the specific legislation has been asked today, and I
appreciate very much your answers and the questions of our
colleagues here on the committee. I think it has shed a
considerable amount of light on the issue and on the solutions
that have been proposed as well.
But I would like to perhaps just ask one question with
respect to something that was in the written testimony of
General Nyland and perhaps get each of you to comment, if you
might, with respect to your particular branch. General Nyland,
you had mentioned, in discussing this whole issue of benefits,
that it ultimately is part of the recruiting and retention
package. In an increasingly difficult recruiting environment,
particularly for the two Services that are shouldering the
greatest burden of death and injury in this war, we must take a
hard look at anything that will set the minds of those in the
war and their families at ease.
I guess in a broader way, I am sort of curious to know what
the status of our recruiting efforts is today and are we seeing
young people, men and women, who are continually being
attracted to serve in the military, and what, if anything, can
be done to improve your ability to be able to recruit young men
and women into the Service. So if you would comment generally
with respect to that overall question.
General Nyland. Yes, sir. Today our recruiting and
retention are still going quite well. We are over 9 years in
making our recruiting goals. Our retention rates are on track
with previous years for both our first-term and second-term
members.
It is however, getting more difficult. Surprisingly, more
of the questions come now from the parents than from the
individual. The young man or woman still wants to serve. The
mother or father wants to know how will he be trained, how will
he be led, when will he go.
So I think anything that helps round out the package and an
understanding of what these benefits can mean certainly is
going to be not only a step in the right direction, but has to
at least help in the education of a member who wants to come
into one of the military services to understand that there are
benefits there that, God forbid, should they lose their life or
have serious injury, that this country is not going to forget
them.
Senator Thune. Any others have comments on that, just on
the general overall status of recruitment?
Dr. Chu. Let me, if I could, Senator, answer for the DOD.
In active recruiting, as General Nyland said, the Services are
making their goals. They are also doing well on retention. We
do have a somewhat greater challenge on the Reserve front, I
should acknowledge.
I think General Nyland touched on a very key point. There
is a place in which you can help us. The military, since the
first Persian Gulf war, in various public opinion polls, is the
most respected institution in this country. It stayed right up
there all the last 15 years. When you next ask parents, ``Would
you advise your son, daughter, nephew, niece, et cetera to
join?'' support drops. Where we need your help is in
celebrating the value of military service, the values that
people are going to get out of this period of service. They are
going to come back a better person and a better citizen. I
think that message from parents, from older siblings, uncles,
aunts, school counselors, is a very important message to send
to the young men and young women of America, to celebrate their
choice.
General Cody. Senator, I just came back from a trip at one
of our enlistment stations in Chicago. In fact, I had the great
opportunity to enlist into the Army 25 of our newest soldiers.
Four of them were 17 years old. None of them, when I asked them
why they wanted to join onto the Army, mentioned benefits. Five
or 6 years ago, you would hear about benefits and education.
Most of the time now I hear our country is at war or I want to
serve. Now, that does not mean that we ought to stop the
benefits and the educational benefits and everything else
because I think they are very important.
I also would tell you that I enlisted them in the center
court of the Chicago Bulls vs. Boston Celtics game that night
and it was a packed house. If you could have seen the
thunderous applause of the arena that night, recognizing that
these young men and women just raised their right hand to serve
the Army that is at war, it was heartfelt. I would like to
think that support exists throughout this country.
But that is where we need help. The influencers of these
young children, young teenagers, are really their parents. I
think we need to talk more about service to this Nation. In
many cases, these young men and women absolutely understand it.
They understand this is a calling of their time. But I think it
would be helpful if we could get some more help with the
influencers, who are their parents, and what service to our
Nation means, and also the fact that when we take these young
men and women in no matter what service, we are committed to
giving them great leadership, but we will also let them reach
their full potential. I think that is a story that we need to
continue to harp on.
General Moseley. Senator, let me agree with everything my
colleagues have said, but add a couple of thoughts for you. It
is axiomatic in the retention world that you recruit the member
but you retain the family. So anything that we can do to make
that bond tighter will benefit all of us because it is the
family that is important while our members are away. These
deployment numbers--the Air Force experienced about a 500-
percent higher deployment rate than we did in the early 1990s.
So our members are away from families at a much higher rate and
they are away longer than they have been before. So you do
recruit that member, but you retain that family. That is a big
deal for us.
Also, all of these things that we are talking today in this
hearing are critically important for us because it is an
article of faith for our people. When they take the oath to
defend the Republic, it is an article of faith that the
Republic will stand by them.
Senator Sessions, thank you so much for what you are asking
of us today, and Senator, I would only add those two things to
my colleagues.
Admiral Nathman. Senator, I would add that on the
recruiting side, the Navy is on a path of reshaping its force.
We are reshaping our recruiting goals as a result of that
because we are going to downsize. At the same time, we want to
attract the best and the brightest to our Service, and I think
the most important point about attracting the best and the
brightest to our Service is that we sustain the value of
serving. What I find very pleasing in this discussion today is
it has all been about sustaining the value of service. That is
really important in this discussion. In the near term, the most
important thing we can do to sustain that value is win this
fight in Iraq.
Senator Thune. I appreciate very much your answers to those
questions and would just say that as a new member of this
committee--and I think all my colleagues on the committee--
would also welcome any suggestion that you have with respect to
pay, benefits, compensation, and all those things that continue
to make service in the military attractive, in addition to the
things that you have mentioned about creating this culture and
celebrating the work that they do. It is so important. We are
very grateful and proud of the work they do. So thank you for
your testimony.
Senator Sessions. Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much. I want to thank the
chairman for holding this hearing. I think it is a subject that
is not only very important but needs to be addressed, and I am
delighted we are doing so.
Last week I joined with Senator Chuck Hagel in introducing
legislation to raise the survivor benefit from $12,000 to
$100,000, and I am delighted the administration will be making
such recommendations. The legislation we introduced would have
been retroactive to November 2001, and I think that it is very
important that it be so.
I have also joined the efforts led by Senators Sessions and
Lieberman. These are reforms that I think send the right signal
about the sustainability of service and the respect and regard
we have for those who do serve.
Several other issues have been raised in this hearing, and
I appreciate very much Chairman Warner's concern that we
address all of them and this gives us an opportunity to do so.
General Cody, I appreciate your comments about following up
on the soldiers who have been injured. I recently had occasion
to write to the Secretary of the Army with respect to a case
that came to my attention in New York of Specialist Lauria who
is an amputee who was at Walter Reed and was presented with a
significant bill and was going to have his pay docked. In our
efforts to look into this, we discovered that there were at
least, I think, 19 other soldiers in a similar situation. I
understand a task force was created at Fort Hood. I have not
yet received an answer to my letter to the Secretary--and I
would very much appreciate receiving that--to look at issues of
payment and debt arising out of service and service-connected
disabilities and how we best treat those.
Another issue that I think is significant, which has been
alluded to today, is this question about military insurance.
There was a series of articles in the New York Times last year
detailing how many servicemembers were being taken advantage of
by unscrupulous insurance agents who were selling soldiers
insurance that offered high cost but little return. Mr.
Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to place those articles
in the record.
Senator Sessions. Without objection, they will be made a
part of the record.
[The New York Times articles follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
Often these agents were able to get on bases with the tacit
approval of base commanders and often the insurance companies
employed retired military officers who conveyed a real sense of
authority. The servicemembers were convinced to sign up for
policies that required large payments to be taken out of their
paychecks.
Last Congress, Senator Enzi and I introduced legislation to
ban periodic payment plans which were the most egregious of
these policies and to require better recordkeeping and a
registry of unscrupulous agents. Our companion legislation did
pass Congress before adjournment. We plan to reintroduce that
legislation this Congress, and I would commend that both to the
committee and also to our witnesses because I think it is an
important piece of the puzzle. If the insurance is going to be
available, then we owe it to the servicemembers and their
families that it be insurance of the highest integrity.
Another piece of this is the financial education issue. I
think that this is a concern because, although there are
programs which you have discussed which educate some of our
servicemembers about insurance policies, about car insurance,
and the like, it is important that we make sure we have uniform
education across all Services and all bases because from our
checking on this, it is quite uneven. Some commanders take it
more seriously than others. Some feel that if you are old
enough to be in the military, look out for yourself. But when
you are 17, 18, or 19, there is still a lot to learn. I think
that part of our obligation, not only to our servicemembers but
to their families, is to make sure that as they are becoming
acclimated, getting used to being in the Service, getting,
maybe for the first time, used to being away from home, that
they are not taken advantage of at the very moment they have
signed up to serve our country.
I am also concerned about the payday lending abuses that
are going on around our bases, which is another issue that I
would like to have included in this overall look that we are
taking. Chairman Warner, I would be very interested in working
with Senator Collins and looking at this broader range of
insurance abuses, payday lending abuses, just so we have a
handle on what is going on and what we might do to try to
prevent that.
Chairman Warner. Senator, that will be done. You two are a
great team. I am very conscious of that. It is just a
continuation of what you have been doing since the first day
you joined the committee.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Finally, we have in the audience representatives of the
Gold Star Wives of America. I have been privileged to develop a
very close working relationship with both the Gold Star Wives
and the Gold Star Mothers. With respect to some of these issues
that we are asking that you look into, and particularly,
Secretary Chu, with respect to the charge that the chairman
gave to you, I think it would be useful to include the
observations and experiences of the Gold Star Wives and
Mothers. Some of the concerns about the casualty assistance
officers that have been raised with me by the Gold Star Wives
and Mothers really need to be brought to your attention because
I think this is a wonderful opportunity to improve what we are
already doing and to remedy any of the problems that are seen
firsthand by those who are really on the front lines of
survivors because they are the ones who receive that knock on
the door.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to submit the
statement of the Gold Star Wives of America also for the
record.
Senator Sessions. Without objection, it will be made a part
of the record.
Senator Clinton. Thank you. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Senator Sessions. Senator DeWine, we are glad to have you
with us today.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and
Chairman Warner for your graciousness in allowing me, not as a
member of the committee, to ask a few questions and take a
little of your time. I appreciate it very much.
I agree with the sentiment that has been expressed by many
members of the panel and others today about really treating all
the families of service men and women who die in service to
their country equally. I think it is just so very important.
We are now mourning in Ohio machinist mate second class
Joseph Ashley. He died on the U.S.S. San Francisco. It ran
aground near Guam on January 9. He died in service to our
country. Megan Elizabeth Edelman died in a parachute accident.
Her services will be this week. It was only her second jump.
This was a training exercise here in the United States. Those
are just two examples from my home State of Ohio.
Senator McCain gave another example. We can all think of
examples. A helicopter goes down in Texas, a training exercise.
You cannot distinguish them. They are in service to their
country. They sign up. Each life is given so that we can be
free and that we can live in peace.
I think that as we go about our business in crafting this
legislation, as you do, Mr. Chairman, here in this committee
and do such a great job and as we do on the floor, that we
should listen to the comments that have been made by the
members of this panel today and take that into consideration.
Let me also make another comment that I made earlier today
and maybe amplify it a little bit and then ask a question. I
think that it is very proper that we raise these benefits, the
lump sum benefit. I commend Senator Sessions and others who
have done this. They are absolutely correct. It needs to be
done, Mr. Chairman.
I still worry, though, about what is going to happen in 15,
16, or 17 years. I think about the little babies, some of them
who never saw their father. We have a moral obligation, to see
that they, if they want to, get to go to college or get to go
to a vocational school, whatever they want to do post-
secondary. Whatever they want to do, they ought to have the
right to do that. If you look at the amount of money we have
set aside today, it is just not quite enough. It just is not
there, and we have to change it. To say that we have set aside
so much money in a lump sum payment, it is just not the same
thing because a lot can happen in 17 years. That is just the
way the world works. Our obligation is to the child of the
deceased service man or woman. So, Mr. Chairman, we ought to
look at that and we have to look at that.
Finally, I want to address the issue of health care. The
bill that has been introduced by the leadership does cover
this, something I was very concerned about, and I would hope
the committee would take that part of that bill at least and
incorporate it into whatever bill that you craft. I do want to
mention it.
It goes back to something that Dr. Chu said about trying to
get some of the same benefits and put these families in the
same shape that they were in during the time that the
serviceman is alive. During the life of the servicemember,
dependents have cost-free access to military health systems,
including many services for special needs children. Following
the death of the servicemember, the surviving dependents
continue to receive military health care free for 3 years, but
then, under current law, are subject to yearly enrollment fees
and copayments.
It seems to me that it would be helpful, as provided in the
leader's bill that was introduced, to the families of deceased
servicemembers if we would remove the unnecessary burden and
worry of enrollment fees and copayments that can become
substantial in the case certainly of a special needs child.
That would do exactly what Dr. Chu said, and that would put
this family in the same position they would have been in if
that servicemember would have lived.
It seems to me, General Cody and others, that is what we
ought to try to do. We are not trying to give them something
they would not have had, but you cannot bring that mom or dad
back, but what we can do, what this compassionate society ought
to do, is step in there and say we want to make sure you can go
to a State university at least, which is all my bill would do,
is to provide enough money to get to go to a State university,
room, board, tuition, and provide enough so that the medical is
taken care of.
I wonder if any of the servicemembers in uniform would
comment on that broad concept without getting into the details,
but of the broad concept of trying to do that. General, you are
nodding your head there. I always like nodders when they are
nodding yes. [Laughter.]
General Cody. Senator, I think you are absolutely right.
What we have talked about here today is to take care of the
initial, as well as set up the future of the family unit. What
needs to be looked at is the potential loss in terms of the
young soldier who died at a certain rank. Had he not died, he
would have probably retired in 20 years at two or three levels
higher, gotten that retirement pay, but still had some more
earning potential later, and been able to provide for his
family in a different way. So that is the gap that we need to
take a look at.
Certainly education, being what it is today, just having
paid for two sons going through college, is expensive. We
should have something. I do not know if it should be on the
back of the Office of the Secretary of Defense or the VA, but
as we take a look across this great country and take a look at
our universities and everything else, we ought to have some
type of means so that they take this up. We give preference at
the military academies for those sons and daughters of deceased
servicemembers, but that is based on order of merit. There are
other things we can do, because I think the education of these
family members that are left behind is something we need to pay
attention to and it is the most costly.
Senator DeWine. Well, I appreciate it. My time is up.
Mr. Epley. May I add something to that, Senator, from the
VA's perspective?
Senator DeWine. With the chairman's permission, certainly.
Mr. Epley. The VA does have benefit programs geared toward
the survivors of service men and women who die in service or
die from a service-connected disability. It provides for
payments currently at $803 a month if the son or daughter is in
full-time training, beginning at age 18 through age 26, and it
offers up to 45 months of entitlement to that training. We are
currently paying about 58,000 of those children, either
survivors or children of totally disabled servicemen today.
That compares to the Montgomery GI Bill, a benefit for veterans
themselves, which is currently $1,004 per month. Congress
raised the rate two times in the last year or year and a half.
It was about $680 prior to that time. Certainly we need to make
sure that it is commensurate with the costs of higher
education.
Senator DeWine. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Senator DeWine.
Chairman Warner, it is an honor to be with you and to be in
the odd position of chairing the chairman. You are too kind and
gracious to allow me to do this.
Chairman Warner. I wanted to be the wrap-up here, and I
certainly want to defer to the leaders like yourself on both
sides--this is truly a bipartisan issue--that have taken
initiatives and I thank you again.
In that vein, I would like to ask unanimous consent that a
statement by Senator Hagel--I mentioned him earlier in my
opening remarks--be admitted to the record. He was one of the
cosponsors.
Senator Sessions. We have that and without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hagel follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Chuck Hagel
Chairman Warner and Senator Levin, thank you for holding this very
important hearing on survivor benefits for our latest generation of
warriors who have given their lives in service to our country. This
committee makes a clear statement to America about the priorities of
our country: our men and women in uniform and their families.
On January 23, the Lincoln Journal Star reported that Nebraska
ranks fifth in the number of military deaths per capita in Iraq. In the
story, the families of Marine Captain Travis Ford of Ogallala, Marine
Corporal Matt Henderson of Lincoln, Army Sergeant Cory Mracek of Hay
Springs and Marine Private Noah Boye of Grand Island shared their
personal stories of how they have grieved and are struggling to grasp
life without their loved one. Their stories are filled with hardship.
But they are also filled with a strong will and determination to let
the memory and legacy of our soldiers live proudly in their hearts and
communities. These stories inspire all of us and make us proud to be
Americans.
Last Monday, I reintroduced legislation to raise the military
survivor benefit paid to the families of military personnel killed
while on Active-Duty from $12,420 to $100,000. The families of our
first responders across the Nation receive between $50,000 and $100,000
as a survivor benefit for the loss of their firefighter or police
officer. My legislation proposes that this legislation apply
retroactively to all servicemembers on Active-Duty who have died after
September 11, 2001.
The military death gratuity is money provided immediately to
families of our servicemembers who are killed while on Active-Duty.
These funds assist next-of-kin with their immediate financial needs.
These financial needs and challenges are no different for the families
of servicemembers who have lost their lives outside combat zones than
they are for those who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan. My legislation
therefore increases the military death gratuity for all servicemembers
who die while on Active-Duty. This is an issue of fundamental fairness.
As we face the challenges of the 21st century, service men and
women sacrificing for their country in a time of war need to be assured
that, should the worst occur, their families will be properly provided
for. The loss of a loved one is a tremendous emotional hardship for
families. Congress should do what it can to ensure that it does not
cause extreme financial hardship as well.
Though nothing can replace the hole torn in a family by the loss of
a son, daughter, mother, or father, the ``Military Death Benefit
Improvement Act of 2005'' will help alleviate some of the financial
hardships faced by the families of our brave service men and women who
give their lives in service to our country. It will send a message to
our brave young men and women and their families that their Nation
appreciates their service and sacrifice. I urge my colleagues on the
Armed Services Committee to move swiftly to improve the death benefits
paid to the families of the brave men and women who give their lives in
service to our great country.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Epley, we have a marvelous man, Jim
Nicholson, who has taken over from Secretary Principi now as
the new presidential appointee running your Department. I have
known him for a long time. He is a decorated Vietnam veteran
and a man in whom I have a lot of confidence and great respect.
I would hope that you would give him a full report of this
hearing because our committee wants to work in tandem and in
partnership with the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I am sure
that he wants to work with Secretary Rumsfeld, Dr. Chu, and
others in working this legislation.
We will try and use as a target the legislation going
through, as Senator Sessions mentioned, the omnibus bill. These
types of legislation, in my long experience on this committee,
should be given the highest priority. I think America wants it
first and foremost. It is interesting. The men and women of the
Armed Forces who experienced these grievous losses of family
and so forth, have come through quietly in their modest ways,
but the American public really is behind them to get this
legislation. So let us move forward with that.
Before I go a little further here, Dr. Chu, in my opening
remarks, I wanted to compliment you on your long service in the
Department. I guess you have combined service of more years in
presidential appointments than anybody else serving in the
Department today. I don't imagine that you spend time sitting
down and adding it all up, but it is close to 15-some-odd years
or more. Am I not correct?
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Who was that famous person who said the
reports of my demise are greatly exagerated or something? I
think we had in mind Dr. Feith when we were talking about the
early departure. So we will strike from the record your
departure.
Dr. Chu. I appreciate that, Senator. I thought maybe you
were sending me a message of some kind. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. No, no. If this old chairman is going to
send you a message, he just barrels it out in a blunt way. He
is not going to do it subtly. Do not worry about that.
Senator Levin. Senator Warner, I am afraid I followed your
lead again in also thanking Dr. Chu for his service. I have to
be more cautious in doing that! But thanks anyway for your
service, Dr. Chu. [Laughter.]
Dr. Chu. I appreciate it.
Chairman Warner. I am going to leave to go out to this
dedication of this new rehabilitation center, which we are
privileged to have in Virginia. But I want to sort of wrap up
with the following.
We have to be mindful, as we move in this legislative
package, of the first responders here in America. Certainly
they, through their professionalism and the arduous tasks that
they perform, be it the police, firemen, or many others, are
subjected to high risk of death and injury, as are other
members of the armed services. We want to pay them appropriate
tribute here in the context of this hearing. I think this
legislation moves in a direction that would provide a total
package for the men and women of the Armed Forces that is quite
different than the packages in the States for the first
responders and those in the Federal system. But I think their
record has helped contribute here in Congress to the early
recognition and consideration of the one for the military. I
wanted to mention that.
Now, Dr. Chu, having been in your position for many years--
some 35 years ago, I was privileged to be Secretary of the
Navy--I know full well there are times when the civilian side
of the house has viewpoints which at some times are at variance
with the uniformed side. That is the strength of the system,
and it should always be that way. It is by no means any
criticism. I have found it exceedingly helpful. But the buck
does stop on the Secretary of Defense's desk as you send that
buck up.
I would like to conclude this hearing this morning, or my
participation here in this question period, with asking you to
let us define with some precision those differences as we view
them as of today, because Congress will move into the vacuum. I
want Congress to move into that vacuum and work with the DOD to
resolve it or take its own initiatives, but let us do so well
informed.
Now, one of them is this issue of the qualification for
benefits. The eligible military today, I think quite properly--
and I must say I associate my views with them for the moment--
should not be limited to personnel in designated geographic
areas. Is that one area of difference, Dr. Chu, that needs to
be resolved legislatively?
Dr. Chu. I would actually ask to follow the provision in
the Sessions, Lieberman, et cetera bill, which leaves that to
the discretion of the Secretary. My colleagues here this
morning had mentioned line-of-duty as one approach we could
take. The thinking we have on this point has two important
elements. One, the Nation particularly wants to recognize those
who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Second, we lose
service personnel--on I-395 for example, in a variety of
peacetime, and nontraining situations. Is that appropriate for
this same payment or not, particularly if there is a
contribution from the individual to the tragic event? I would
urge that discretion be given the Secretary on the point of how
we cover this. You might wish to consider report language that
guides us in using that discretion as to what your intent is.
Chairman Warner. All right. Senator Sessions, you will be
among those who will be working on this issue. Let us have some
precision on that. I believe an element of discretion reposed
in the Secretary is a wise piece of legislation to have in
there.
Would a second one be the date of retroactivity, or are we
pretty much in agreement?
Dr. Chu. I think we all agree it should be October 7, 2001.
That is the start of combat operations in Afghanistan.
Chairman Warner. Now, are there any others that come to
mind, any other areas where there could be at the moment some
difference of views between the civilian side of the house and
the uniformed side?
Dr. Chu. The other important point that I am aware of is
how one consults with the next of kin on a declination of
insurance. Again, I think we leave some discretion to the
Secretary as to how that happens. I think it is very helpful,
and Senator Sessions' and Senator Lieberman's bill calls out
the need to do something here, just as you have guided us on
this point in the SBP legislation much earlier.
Chairman Warner. All right.
Our distinguished acting chairman, can you think of any
other differences that come to mind here before we close out?
Senator Sessions. No. Other than the additional suggestions
such as from Senator DeWine on health care benefits or
education interests, I do not know of any other specific items
that need to be settled. I think the Veterans Committee
suggested $300,000, as the increase from $250,000 to $300,000
rather than to $400,000. So that is a matter that we may need
to think through.
Chairman Warner. Well, that is within the Veterans' Affairs
jurisdiction. We want to be very careful to coordinate with
their jurisdictional responsibilities.
Well, then that concludes my comments on this, colleagues
and our distinguished witness panel. I thank all of you. You
have done a great service to those on Active-Duty and to their
families and others, as you have come up forthrightly in your
testimony today, and I am confident that Congress will act
swiftly. I compliment the Department, Dr. Chu, through your
good efforts and those of the Secretary and the Deputy
Secretary.
Dr. Chu. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. I entrust this to you
and Senator Levin.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Again, I thank Senator Levin for his
leadership on this issue, not only on this but on many others.
But you have your own bill, and I presume that the area in
which we are moving is consistent with the objectives and goals
that you had in mind, Senator Levin?
Senator Levin. Trying to eliminate that distinction is an
important goal, and we do eliminate the distinction as to where
the death took place in our bill.
Chairman Warner. Good. I thank you.
Senator Levin. One other area that is complicated, it seems
to me, is that the proposal I believe the administration is
supporting suggests that the extra insurance will be provided
in the event that the death occurs in the AO and that the
premium will be paid for.
Dr. Chu. No, sir. What we are supporting, as I think has
been outlined this morning, is an increase in SGLI for
everybody to $400,000.
Senator Levin. Right.
Dr. Chu. In addition, we would like a provision, which I
think is parallel to the Sessions-Lieberman bill provision,
that would allow us to finance that for everyone in the AO
designated by the Secretary. The intent there is to ensure that
everyone, notwithstanding whatever next-of-kin provision we
work out, is afforded some level of insurance, even if they
declined. So if you selected the full $400,000, you would get a
rebate on your premium. You would get a lower premium
basically. If you did not, we would buy the insurance for you
anyway.
Senator Levin. I just would raise the administrative
complexity about having the premium----
Dr. Chu. We are discussing that with the VA. Compared to
commercial policies, I think this is relatively straightforward
frankly.
Senator Levin. Well, it is not straightforward if, when you
are in the AO, you get a premium paid for what you do not get
if you are outside of the AO.
Dr. Chu. We have a whole series of pays, as you are aware,
Senator, that are triggered by AO constraints.
Senator Levin. I just want to raise that issue.
Dr. Chu. We think it is tractable.
Senator Levin. Okay.
The other issue that I have has to do with the legislation,
Dr. Chu, which we enacted giving the DOD and other Federal
agencies a requirement that senior executives be paid on the
basis of performance.
Now, you issued a memorandum. You signed a memorandum on
January 12 saying to all of the Secretaries that you may not
grant an across-the-board increase to Senior Executive Service
(SES) members. You may not grant an across-the-board increase.
Yet, we find that an across-the-board increase has been now
ordered for political appointees.
Dr. Chu. You are speaking, I think, to Mr. DuBois'
memorandum regarding Washington Headquarters Services. Is that
correct?
Senator Levin. Yes.
Dr. Chu. That is not quite accurate. My understanding is
that they still have to demonstrate a fully successful
performance.
Senator Levin. Yes, but fully-successful level is the
lowest level. Right?
Dr. Chu. No. There is unsuccessful, basically.
Senator Levin. Well, what about career SES members
performing at the fully-successful level? Are they guaranteed
that pay?
Dr. Chu. Let me step back from the specifics of his memo
and outline the process we tried to put in place. We tried to
encourage each major component of the Department, the three
military departments, and then what some like to call the
fourth estate, to craft within the parameters of the statute a
performance-oriented result. Now, from my memorandum, I set the
standard that you could not just give everybody the same thing
and that your decisions need to have a performance foundation.
I left each component to its discretion how it could best carry
that out.
Senator Levin. Now, noncareer SES members that perform at
the fully-successful level will receive an increase of 2.5
percent. Is that correct? That is what the decision was.
Dr. Chu. That is Mr. DuBois' choice for the Washington
career service. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Levin. Is that true for career SES members?
Dr. Chu. No, he set a different standard for those
reflecting----
Senator Levin. I think that is inconsistent with our
statute and with your memo because he is treating career and
noncareer SES folks differently. All the fully-successful are
better----
Dr. Chu. Can I make a suggestion, sir? Let me get him to
come up and explain----
Senator Levin. No, no. I want you to tell me whether you
believe that his memo, which distinguishes between career and
noncareer SES members, is consistent with your memo. That is
what I want.
Dr. Chu. I think it is consistent because he set a
performance standard. Whether it is consistent with the
statute, I leave to the general counsel who tries to review
these things for me and make sure I am on the right path in
each case. But to the philosophy that is involved, his argument
for this choice is that the noncareer SES received actually in
the previous round a smaller increase. So he is trying to look
on a multi-year basis as to how was this done.
Senator Levin. Regardless of what his motive or purpose
is--and that is arguable--the law says that we have to treat
the career and noncareer SES folks the same. He has
distinguished between them by saying that if you have fully-
successful performance or better, you get a 2.5 percent pay
raise.
Dr. Chu. I am delighted to go back to my legal counsel and
make sure we are in the right place in allowing him to do this.
Senator Levin. Was it the legal counsel who wrote your
memo?
Dr. Chu. We wrote the memo and we asked them to review it.
Senator Levin. All right.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, could we ask the legal
counsel whether or not distinguishing between career and
noncareer the way that we have just described is consistent
with our statute which says we cannot distinguish between
career and noncareer, that performance-based compensation is
what we required? So that would be the question which would be
asked. With your permission, I would like to ask that----
Senator Sessions. We will leave the hearing open for
questions, and you will be able to submit that. I would suggest
that that would be a good approach.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Dr. Chu, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Sessions. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony
today and for your service to your country. I think there is a
good feeling out there among the American people about doing
more for families who have lost a loved one in combat. It has
been surprising to me the groundswell of grassroots support
that have come to my office and others who have been talking
about this issue. People want to be generous to those who
serve. We thank you for your excellent testimony today.
I would offer for the record a letter from the American
Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Disabled American
Veterans, which specifically have endorsed the HEROES Act that
Senator Lieberman and I have offered, although all of us are
moving in a bipartisan, collegial way to develop the best
language that we can come up with in that regard.
[The letter from the American Legion, the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, and the Disabled American Veterans follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sessions. I would also note that in our last
defense authorization bill, I worked with the committee and
Chairman Warner and others, and language was put in that bill
to require a study of disability benefits for those who are
wounded. It would call for the Department to identify and
assess the changes in the DOD personnel policies needed to
enhance the financial and nonfinancial benefits. It calls on
the DOD to consult with the Veterans' Affairs agency, the
Veterans Disability Benefit Commission, and it would be
finished and completed not more than 150 days from the date of
the bill. So, Dr. Chu, that time is running on us.
Dr. Chu. We know the clock is ticking, yes, sir. But it is
important, I think, for us to take a fresh review, as Senator
McCain and others said. Where are we? What can we do to
modernize this in a way that is effective?
Senator Sessions. I also appreciate the financial
counseling, General Cody, you mentioned, that is provided for
young soldiers. We have discussed whether that should be a part
of any legislation with regard to families or widows or
surviving spouses who lost a loved one and they receive
$400,000, $500,000 in payment. I am sure that it will be
offered to them. Is that correct, gentlemen? I see you are
nodding yes. Through the service support or the Office of the
Judge Advocate General, you will be able to provide counseling
to them on that. I do not know whether it should be mandatory
and some formal procedure set up for that. Perhaps not. I would
look forward to your suggestions on that.
If there is no additional business to come before the
committee, I will again thank you for you participation today
and note that we are adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pat Roberts
irs treatment of differential pay provided to members of the guard and
reserve
1. Senator Roberts. General Cody, Admiral Nathman, General Nyland,
and General Moseley, are you aware of any interagency strategy to
encourage the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) along and get them to do
the right thing by our men and women of the Guard and Reserve?
General Cody. There is no interagency strategy to engage the IRS on
behalf of Guard and Reserve members.
Admiral Nathman. There is no interagency strategy to engage the IRS
on behalf of the Guard and Reserve members.
General Nyland. According to the IRS, differential pay is not
compensation for the recipients since it is not paid for services
performed in the employment of companies who voluntarily make such
payments. For that reason, payments for differential pay are not
``wages'' as defined by law under the Internal Revenue Code and are not
subject to the taxes imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act
and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act or to the Collection of Income Tax
at the Source of Wages. Taxpayers must include differential pay in
income for Federal tax purposes; however, there is no requirement for
employers to withhold income tax from differential pay. Bottom line:
There is no interagency strategy to encourage the IRS to alter its
guidance on differential pay since the IRS must treat differential pay
within the legislative parameters established by the Internal Revenue
Code and other applicable laws.
General Moseley. Military differential pay is made voluntarily by
an employer to represent the difference between the regular salary of
an employee called to military Active-Duty and the amount being paid by
the military, if the regular salary is higher.
The employment relationship between the employee and the company is
interrupted when the worker is called for active military service with
the U.S. Government or National Guard. Therefore these payments are not
``wages'' subject to the taxes imposed by the Federal Insurance
Contributions Act and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act or to the
Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages (IRS Revenue Ruling 69-
136).
The activated member's employer does not withhold taxes for
military differential pay.
The payments are considered income but not ``wages'' subject to
withholding. Therefore, the recipient should prepare for the tax
liability by making quarterly estimated tax payments.
Currently the best IRS option for a deployed military member is for
that taxpayer to sign up for the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System.
This enables the person to schedule payments directly from a bank
account for up to a year in advance. It is an easy way for both the
taxpayer and the government, and ensures prompt and accurate crediting
of payments to the taxpayers account. Other options are for the member
to make credit card payments or to send checks with Form 1040-ES
vouchers.
Ref: IRS Publication 505, Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax.
2. Senator Roberts. General Cody, Admiral Nathman, General Nyland,
and General Moseley, has the IRS provided the necessary resources to
our troops and their families to ensure that between fighting
insurgents and rebuilding a nation, our troops can file their quarterly
estimated tax returns if they are able?
General Cody. Yes. In cases where there is no requirement for
private employers to withhold income tax from differential pay (pay by
a private employer to represent the difference between the employees'
regular salary and military pay) the IRS recommends that military
members make quarterly estimated tax payments. While there is no legal
requirement for recipients of differential pay to pay quarterly
estimated taxes, those who choose to pay them may pay by electronic
payment (scheduled up to a year in advance), credit card, or check.
As a Department of Defense (DOD) participant in the IRS Volunteer
Income Tax Assistance Program, the Army assists soldiers by preparing
and filing tax returns. These services extend to soldiers deployed
worldwide to include those in combat zones and qualified hazardous duty
areas. In addition, current law grants an automatic extension to
members of the Armed Forces deployed to combat zones and qualified
hazardous duty areas. The automatic extension lasts for a minimum of
180 days after the member returns from deployment to these locations
and covers activities such as filing tax returns, paying taxes, and
filing claims for a refund.
Admiral Nathman, General Nyland, and General Moseley. There is no
legal requirement for recipients of differential pay to file quarterly
estimated taxes, however this filing approach is one method for those
taxpayers to avoid owing the tax all at once when they file their
returns. Available options for payment of quarterly estimated taxes
include by electronic payment scheduled up to a year in advance, credit
card payments or payments by check. Through a partnership with the IRS,
the Department of the Navy has an active Volunteer Income Tax
Assistance program to aid servicemembers, including those deployed
around the world, in completing and filing their tax returns. There are
understandable limits on the capability of service personnel deployed
to certain geographic locations to complete and file tax returns.
Therefore the law grants an automatic extension for filing tax returns,
paying taxes, filing claims for refund and taking other actions with
IRS for service personnel deployed to a combat zone, qualified
hazardous duty area or participating in a qualified contingency
operation. The automatic extension lasts for a minimum of 6 months
after the individual returns from deployment to such a location.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
pay raises for political appointees and career employees
3. Senator Levin. Dr. Chu, Section 1125 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 eliminated the established
system for paying senior executives and required the DOD and other
Federal agencies to pay senior executives ``based on individual
performance, contribution to the agency's performance, or both, as
determined under a rigorous performance management system.'' On January
12, 2005, you implemented this provision for the DOD by issuing a
memorandum directing the military departments and defense agencies to
award pay increases for senior executives ``based on their relative
standing.'' Your memorandum expressly prohibited the use of across-the-
board increases.
On the same day, however, the Director of Administration and
Management for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) directed an
across-the-board pay raise of 2.5 percent--the maximum pay raise
allowable--for all senior executives in OSD and the defense agencies
who are political appointees and who receive a fully satisfactory
rating. By contrast, career civil servants who receive the same rating
would be evaluated on their individual performance and contribution to
the agency, and only the top performers would receive a 2.5 percent pay
raise.
Do you believe that an across-the-board pay raise of 2.5 percent
for senior executives in OSD and the defense agencies who are political
appointees is consistent with the statutory requirement that pay be
``based on individual performance, contribution to the agency's
performance, or both, as determined under a rigorous performance
management system''?
Dr. Chu. On January 12, 2004, I issued policy regarding SES pay
increases. Each DOD component applied that policy based upon its
existing pay and performance system, all of which pre-date the new SES
pay-for-performance law and regulations. The existing performance
management system for executives in OSD and Defense agencies is a
three-level rating system, the highest of which is fully successful.
Career employees are further evaluated by a performance review board
and awards are granted accordingly. Because non-career SES in DODare
not eligible for awards, their performance was not subject to review by
the performance review board; therefore no further ranking was made
under the criteria in place for the most recent performance cycle.
Based on those criteria, the decision to increase the pay of non-career
and career executives in OSD was based not on status but on performance
and contribution as required by law and policy. While the existing
system cannot be certified under the current OPM rules, the Department
made appropriate decisions regarding the 2005 pay increase.
Accordingly, this should not be treated as an example of the new SES
pay for performance system, simply because the system has not yet been
approved for implementation.
The Department is working closely with the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) on a new SES pay and performance system that will
produce positive results and meet the new legal and regulatory
requirements necessary for OPM and the Office of Management and Budget
certification.
4. Senator Levin. Dr. Chu, have you obtained a written opinion from
counsel on this issue? If so, please provide a copy of the opinion to
the committee. If not, please obtain such an opinion and provide a copy
to the committee.
Dr. Chu. Response pending from the Office of General Counsel.
5. Senator Levin. Dr. Chu, doesn't the decision to award the
maximum allowable pay raise to all political appointees in OSD and the
defense agencies undermine DOD's credibility when you say that the new
authority granted by the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) will
be implemented in a manner that fairly relates pay to performance
without bias or favoritism?
Dr. Chu. No. As explained in response to question three, each DOD
component based the 2005 pay increase on ratings made under its
existing pay and performance system, all of which pre-date the new SES
pay-for-performance law and regulations.
The new Executive and Senior Professional Pay and Performance
system that we submitted to the Office of Personnel Management for
approval contains safeguards to effectively support and meet all legal
and regulatory requirements. I can assure you the new system will
alleviate your concerns. The new DOD pay system will be credible not
only with senior executives but also with other employees who will be
entering pay-for-performance systems under the National Security
Personnel System.
I am confident that as you look at the Department's new system you
will agree that it is both consistent with the requirements of section
1125 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 and
in the best interests of the DOD and its employees.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
death benefits and services available to survivors of military
personnel
6 and 7. Senator Kennedy. General Cody, a constituent of mine,
Private First Class John Hart from Bedford, Massachusetts, was killed
in action in Iraq in October 2003. Before he deployed, he filled out a
will along with the other soldiers in his unit. After he was killed,
neither the Hart family or the Army could locate his will amongst his
personal effects. His family asked the Army to search his personal
effects for the will and it was never found. Private Hart's family
finally had to declare a lost will and went through Probate in
Massachusetts. This painstaking evolution takes both time, money and an
attorney, something that nobody that is grieving needs to be exposed,
especially when their loved one dies defending our values. What is the
procedure for the U.S. Army when it pertains to holding the wills for
deploying soldiers? Does the Army hold wills? If not, why?
General Cody. No, the Army does not hold wills. When a will is
prepared for a soldier, the soldier is advised of the legal
significance of the document and the need to safeguard it. Soldiers are
advised to inform their personal representative of the location of the
current will and the need to update it after a major life event occurs.
In the rare instance when a will is prepared immediately prior to
deployment, arrangements are made to mail the will to the soldier's
personal representative.
The Army consistently strives to ensure that soldiers are educated
regarding the importance of safeguarding their wills and informing the
personal representative of the location of the current will. The
constant mobility of our soldier-clients and soldier-attorneys and the
personal nature of such documents make it impractical for legal
assistance offices to be a repository of the wills prepared for
soldiers, thus the emphasis on sending the will to the personal
representative.
8. Senator Kennedy. General Cody, I have heard of cases where the
personal effects of a person wounded or killed in action are not being
returned to them or their loved ones. That certainly was the case with
the family of Private John Hart, who was killed in Iraq in October
2003. Please explain the procedures for returning personal effects to
loved ones after a servicemember is killed in action.
General Cody. The unit commander is responsible for collecting and
evacuating the deceased soldier's personal effects through mortuary
affairs channels within the theater of operations to the Joint Personal
Effects Depot at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. The depot will
photograph, clean, and inventory the personal effects and then FedEx
the deceased soldier's property to the Casualty Assistance Officer
(CAO) for delivery to the family. Unfortunately, in the case of Private
First Class John Hart, the unit shipped his personal effects directly
to his family instead of using mortuary affairs channels. According to
the CAO, Mr. and Mrs. Hart received Private First Class Hart's personal
effects January 2004. Since this time, we have continued to publish
guidance informing our deployed units of the appropriate channels for
evacuating the personal effects of deceased and wounded soldiers.
Within the past 6 months, we have been able to account for every
deceased soldier's personal effects as units comply with established
policies and procedures.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Mark Dayton
government housing for a surviving military family
9. Senator Dayton. General Cody, Admiral Nathman, General Nyland,
and General Moseley, in response to a previous question of mine, each
of the Vice Chiefs indicated that base commanders have authority to
extend the 6 months that a surviving family can remain in government
housing. I know that the first 6 months is at no cost to the family. If
this time is extended so that children can complete the school year, or
for other reasons, does the family have to pay rent?
General Cody. Yes. When exceptions are submitted and approved by
the installation commander for the family to retain housing for an
additional 180 days, rent is charged at an amount equal to the
Soldier's Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).
Admiral Nathman. Yes. In compliance with the National Defense
Authorization Act and Department of Defense Housing Management
regulations, surviving family members occupying family housing are
allowed to occupy housing without charge for a period of 180 days. The
installation commander may extend occupancy beyond the 180 days. When
an extension beyond the 180 days is granted, rental rates equivalent to
the member's full housing allowances or fair market value of the
quarters will be charged.
General Nyland. In accordance with the DOD Financial Management
Regulation (DODFMR), Volume 7A, Table 26-9, rule 19, if family members
are residing in government quarters, then the widow/widower
(dependents) entitlement to receive BAH exists for 180 days.
In compliance with DOD 4165.63M guidance, family members shall pay
a rental rate to continue to remain in family housing. This is after
the 180-day period and upon termination of the BAH entitlement.
General Moseley. Survivors of military members may stay in
government housing longer than 6 months. Survivors would pay rent at
fair market rate for any time longer than 6 months.
[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the committee adjourned.]