[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 674, H.R. 1273,
H.R. 1900, H.R. 1901, H.R. 2346, H.R. 2696, AND H.R. 2697
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 31, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-40
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-478 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
Dakota HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona Carolina
JOHN J. HALL, New York JEFF MILLER, Florida
PHIL HARE, Illinois JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
JOHN J. HALL, New York, Chairman
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado, Ranking
PHIL HARE, Illinois MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
July 31, 2007
Page
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 674, H.R. 1273, H.R. 1900, H.R. 1901,
H.R. 2346, H.R. 2696, and H.R. 2697............................ 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman John J. Hall............................................ 1
Prepared statement of Chairman Hall.......................... 30
Hon. Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican Member..................... 16
Prepared statement of Congressman Lamborn.................... 31
Hon. Shelley Berkley............................................. 14
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Bradley G. Mayes, Director,
Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration................................................. 21
Prepared statement of Mr. Mayes.............................. 40
______
American Legion, Alec S. Petkoff, Assistant Director, Veterans
Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission.......................... 13
Prepared statement of Mr. Petkoff............................ 38
American Veterans (AMVETS), Raymond C. Kelley, Legislative
Director....................................................... 13
Prepared statement of Mr. Kelley............................. 37
Fossella, Hon. Vito, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York.................................................... 4
Prepared statement of Congressman Fossella................... 32
International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association, Robert
M. Fells, External Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel. 12
Prepared statement of Mr. Fells.............................. 36
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Carl Blake, National Legislative
Director....................................................... 9
Prepared statement of Mr. Blake.............................. 33
Rahall II, Hon. Nick J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of West Virginia......................................... 3
Prepared statement of Congressman Rahall..................... 31
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the Untied States, Eric A. Hilleman,
Deputy Director, National Legislative Service.................. 10
Prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman........................... 35
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Disabled American Veterans, Brian Lawrence, Assistant National
Legislative Director, statement................................ 42
Gutierrez, Hon. Luis V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, statement................................... 42
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Hon. James B. Peake, Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, to Hon. Bob Filner, Chairman, Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, letter dated July 7, 2008, transmitting Administration
views on H.R. 156, H.R. 1273, H.R. 1900, and H.R. 1901......... 43
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 674, H.R. 1273,
H.R. 1900, H.R. 1901, H.R. 2346, H.R. 2696, AND H.R. 2697
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007
U. S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance
and Memorial Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:30 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John J. Hall
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hall, Rodriguez, Hare, Berkley,
and Lamborn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HALL
Mr. Hall. Okay. Sorry for the extra long delay. Welcome
back. The Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial
Affairs will come to order.
Good afternoon. First would everybody please rise and join
me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Flags are at either end of the
room.
[Pledge of Allegiance.]
Mr. Hall. I would like to thank the witnesses for taking
time to appear today and for their patience with our voting
schedule and also for presenting testimony on these important
measures, H.R. 674, H.R. 1273, H.R. 1900, H.R. 1901, H.R. 2346,
H.R. 2696 and H.R. 2697, all of which we will be considering
today.
H.R. 674, introduced by Congressman Gutierrez which would
repeal the sunset of the Advisory Committee on Minority
Veterans (ACMV) slated to occur December 31, 2009, if there is
no intervening congressional action.
As I stated during our joint hearing with the Health
Subcommittee, I am especially concerned about the pending
expiration of this authorization. In light of the June 2007
report from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's)
Health Services Research and Development Service entitled,
``Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the VA Healthcare System: A
Systematic Review,'' which found that racial disparities exist
in all clinical areas and that the disparities in healthcare
delivery are contributing to measurable differences in health
outcomes, this Committee is definitely still necessary. It also
found that the disparate treatment in the VA appears to affect
African-American and Hispanic veterans more significantly.
With minorities comprising 20 percent of all of our
Nation's veterans, I, like Mr. Gutierrez, believe the Advisory
Committee on Minority Veterans plays an essential and
indispensable role for the VA and should be made into a
permanent fixture.
We will also receive testimony on three bills regarding
veterans' memorial benefits, H.R. 1273, H.R. 2346, H.R. 2696 by
Ms. Berkley, Mr. Fossella and Mr. Lamborn, our Ranking Member.
Mr. Lamborn will be here sometime soon, we hope. He is
currently in another hearing that hopefully will allow him to
leave and come over here.
In the meantime, the minority side is represented by
Counsel, Kingston Smith. Mr. Lamborn and Ms. Berkley's bills,
among other things, seek to increase the plot and headstone or
marker allowance for veterans who choose to be laid to rest in
State or private cemeteries. Mr. Fossella's bill, H.R. 2346, is
intended to improve the process for determining where our
National cemeteries are located. I know that because of
changing migration patterns and simple geographic
configurations, the current criteria of a 170,000 veteran
population in a 75-mile radius is not always a workable
paradigm. I am also aware that the VA is currently evaluating
its memorial benefits plan, and I look forward to hearing
testimony on its progress in this area before the April 2008
targeted completion date.
We will also hear from Mr. Rahall on two bills that he
sponsored, which would expand the category of those veterans
eligible to receive pensions for nonservice-connected-
disability death or service. H.R. 1900 would do so by providing
this pension to veterans receiving expeditionary medals, and
H.R. 1901 would do so by including those veterans who served in
the Korean Peninsula, Lebanon, Panama and Grenada. I look
forward to receiving testimony on these two important measures.
Lastly, H.R. 2697, also sponsored by Mr. Lamborn would
expand the eligibility for veterans' mortgage life insurance to
include Members of the Armed Forces receiving specially
adaptive housing. I know it is often difficult for these
servicemembers to acquire commercial insurance policies. This
bill would close that gap between the military and VA military
benefits. This change is now more necessary than ever for our
returning Operation Enduring Freedom/Operations Iraqi Freedom
(OEF/OIF) veterans. I will allow Mr. Lamborn, our Ranking
Member, to read his opening statement when he is able to join
us.
And if it is okay, we will go right ahead to our first
panel, which has shrunk from three to two. Welcome, the
Honorable Nick Rahall. Mr. Gutierrez apparently is not able to
join us, and the Honorable Vito Fossella. Your written
statements will be entered into the hearing record so feel free
to deviate from them.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Hall appears on p. 30.]
Mr. Hall. Mr. Rahall, we will start with your testimony and
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF THE HON. NICK RAHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; AND THE HON. VITO
FOSSELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
YORK
STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK RAHALL
Mr. Rahall. Thank you very much, Chairman Hall and Ranking
Member soon to be here, and my good friends and colleagues Mr.
Rodriguez and Ms. Berkley. It is very nice to be with you
today.
I thank you and the Members of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee for what you have done in recent months to honor our
brave men and women in uniform.
The Committee knows that for centuries, we have witnessed
the personal courage and sacrifice made by millions of
Americans who have served our country. They have done so
proudly without hesitation to protect our freedoms and our way
of life and to help ensure peace in various regions worldwide.
These individuals represent the best of America and I believe
it is imperative that we in the Congress do everything in our
power to honor them when they return home from their service.
Too often when these young men and women do return, as the
Committee is very well aware, we do not always honor their
bravery with the full measure of respect and gratitude that it
deserves. I believe we should take this opportunity to help
ensure that our veterans regardless of the timeframe of their
service receive appropriate recognition and benefits. Under
current law, veterans may only meet eligibility requirements to
draw a full pension if they have served in combat during a
declared period of war. While this method was sufficient for
the majority of veterans who served in America's 20th century
engagements, America's evolving role in the world has
necessitated the expansion and adaptation of our veterans
benefit programs, including those pertaining to pensions. I
believe this Subcommittee would agree that the veterans who put
their lives on the line and suffer losses during undeclared
times of conflict are no less admirable or deserving of thanks
than those who serve in declared conflicts.
My first bill, H.R. 1900, would expand eligibility for
pension benefits through the VA to veterans who have received
the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. This medal was
established in 1961 by John F. Kennedy to recognize the service
of American veterans in light of the expanding involvement of
the U.S. in conflicts outside the scope of a ``period of war.''
This medal is still awarded today to those men and women
who serve in hostile regions, but not all of these courageous
veterans receive full benefits. My second bill, H.R. 1901,
would provide the guarantees of a pension to veterans who
served in Korea, Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama. The bill
specifically extends benefits to the following: Veterans who
served in Korea from February 1, 1955, through August 4, 1964,
and from May 8, 1975, through 1990; veterans who served in
Lebanon and Grenada from August 24, 1982, through July 31,
1984; and finally veterans who served in Panama from December
20, 1989, through January 31, 1990. This bill would benefit
those qualifying veterans who facilitated the overthrow of
General Noriega in Panama as well as those who served in the
conflict in Lebanon in 1983 when Americans, as we all know,
lost 241 Marines to a suicide attack on our barracks in Beirut.
Though the soldiers and those who served during additional
conflicts covered by this bill were clearly at risk, they are
currently not eligible to receive veterans' pensions.
Nonetheless, in these cases, danger was faced. I think we all
would agree with that. Bravery was shown. I think we all would
agree with that. And unfortunately American lives were lost.
So Mr. Chairman, I believe these bills would closely align
the sacrifices made by these men and women with the
compensation they deserve. As President Reagan said in his
remarks to the Nation on the conflict in Lebanon and Grenada,
and I quote: ``They gave their lives in defense of our National
security every bit as much as any man who ever died fighting in
a war.''
These sentiments apply to every man and woman who has stood
in harm's way to protect our freedoms. It is time that we
recognize that fact and extend pension benefits to those
veterans who have exemplified the courage and bravery of
service in our Armed Forces. Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the Members of the Subcommittee and I thank the full
Committee, under Chairman Bob Filner's leadership for the
excellent work each of you do for our Nation's veterans.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Rahall appears on p.
31.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Rahall. Mr. Fossella, you are now
recognized for 5 minutes and your statement is also entered
into the record.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. VITO FOSSELLA
Mr. Fossella. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr.
Rodriguez, Ms. Berkley, thank you for your attendance here. And
rather than repeat, let me just echo what my colleague, Mr.
Rahall, has said not only about this Committee but also the
great sacrifice and service of our men and women in uniform.
And let me talk specifically about the legislation I have
introduced. For years, I joined the Staten Island veterans in a
battle to establish a veterans cemetery in our borough. The
closest veterans cemetery in the area is the Calverton National
Cemetery in Long Island. But transportation demands have made
it practically inaccessible for too many of the 28,000 veterans
in my district. It can be a grueling 3- to 5-hour roundtrip
commute, making traveling there terribly difficult,
particularly for disabled and older veterans.
There are three primary obstacles preventing the
establishment of a veterans' cemetery on Staten Island. First,
the New York State law passed in the eighties prohibits the
State from funding a veterans cemetery. Currently, I, along
with Staten Island's local representatives, are working on a
legislative solution to fix that problem. Second, Staten Island
lacks the necessary available acreage for a cemetery. As you
might know, there is a minimum requirement of about 175 acres.
And due to the land shortage, many local veterans have united
around the idea of a mausoleum because it requires the least
amount of land and is the most cost effective way to achieve
their long-sought goal. Real estate prices are high, and real
estate itself is limited.
Third, the Department of Veterans Affairs would call the
threshold of 170,000 veterans living within a 75-mile area to
necessitate the establishment of a national veterans cemetery.
Due to the fact that Calverton on Long Island falls within the
75-mile radius and therefore is ineligible under current law.
For an aging, often disabled veteran population, the 3- to 5-
hour commute to Long Island is unreasonable, and simply does
not serve the veteran population nor their families on Staten
Island.
In addition, as I have mentioned, we have the 75-mile rule,
175 acres as well. As I mentioned earlier, many local veterans
have come to agree the idea of a mausoleum instead of an actual
cemetery is acceptable and appropriate. I believe that the
threshold requirements used by the VA are a blunt instrument
when applied to determining cemetery eligibility. To refine the
process, I offered H.R. 2346, a bill which would improve the
process by adding additional variables for the VA to consider
when siting a national cemetery. The bill would direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a process for
determining whether geographic areas are efficiently served by
the veterans cemeteries located in the area. The process will
take into account the following variables for each of the
geographic areas: One, total number of veterans; two, the
average distance residents must travel to reach the nearest
national cemetery; three, the population density; four, the
average amount of time it takes a resident to travel to the
nearest national cemetery; and five, the availability of public
transportation for purposes of traveling to the cemeteries.
And finally, the average amount of fees charged to an
individual travelling on the major roads leading to the
national cemeteries.
And this sort of encapsulates it all. As you might know,
Mr. Chairman, being from New York, congestion and traffic is a
problem getting from point A to point B. In addition, tolls and
the Verrazano Bridge alone going on and off Staten Island right
now round trip is $9, and is scheduled to rise to perhaps $10
or $11 roundtrip.
So there is significant costs and time constraints placed
upon any veteran or family Member wanting to visit the
cemetery.
Finally, in the case of a geographic area in which
sufficient land is not available for the establishment of a
cemetery, we ask and allow the Secretary to consider
establishing alternatives like a mausoleum. It is worth noting
that the VA, as you mentioned, is currently conducting a study
regarding its requirements for establishing a national veterans
cemetery. A focus of the study is an examination of whether
current thresholds are feasible and not overly simplistic in
ensuring veteran access. The VA knows there is a problem, and I
hope my legislation can help fix it.
In closing, Staten Island has one of the highest veterans
populations in the State, yet it remains underserved, I
believe, by a veterans cemetery. It is my hope that if adopted,
perhaps with your support, the legislation would provide for a
place of remembrance for so many of my constituents who deserve
such a site closer to home.
Thank you very much for your time, to the Committee and
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Congressman.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Fossella appears on
p. 32.]
Mr. Hall. If you have a minute to answer questions, both to
Mr. Rahall and Mr. Fossella, what I will do, since I made an
opening statement, is ask Mr. Rodriguez if he would like to go
first.
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you very much.
Chairman Rahall, let me ask you, do you know the number you
anticipate you might be looking at that would fall under the
category that you specify? Do you have a rough number.
Mr. Rahall. The number of individuals serving in the war?
Mr. Rodriguez. That would fall under that category.
Mr. Rahall. I am currently requesting that information from
each branch of the military, and the DoD, in an effort to
gather the records for the amount of medals that had been
awarded on the first bill, the expeditionary medal. I don't
have the numbers yet on the second bill, the pension benefits.
Wait just a second. Let me see. I might have those.
Mr. Rodriguez. I have been informed by the staff, I think--
--
Mr. Rahall. The same response, Mr. Rodriguez. We have the
requests in to DoD and we don't have those numbers returned
yet.
Mr. Rodriguez. I think it is definitely a good idea and
just wanted to see in terms of how many we were referring to.
Congressman, on the cemeteries, let me also congratulate
you for bringing that forward, because I know that right now
the life expectancy--that doesn't sound too good for a
cemetery--but the life expectancy of the existing cemeteries,
even the ones we have now, are very low. By maybe creating
additional ones, that might enhance their life expectancy.
I wanted to look at it because I have a district that spans
650 miles across west Texas and we don't have any cemeteries
out there. There is no doubt that we don't have a population of
175,000 people. There is a need for maybe some smaller
cemeteries in conjunction where the counties can participate in
helping in those areas.
So I just want to congratulate you on bringing forth this
effort here because there is no doubt that we need to look at
different options versus just going into urban areas. Because
basically, that is what this does, it just establishes
cemeteries in urban areas despite the fact that I know you have
an urban area that still allows options to look at different
kinds of areas. I want to just thank you and congratulate you
for that.
Mr. Fossella. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. As I see it, there
are some rigid rules that the VA has. I think what we all would
like to get to is some degree of flexibility, whether it is in
west Texas or in Staten Island, to recognize that there may be
a veterans population that may be underserved.
Mr. Rodriguez. For a cost. Later on, we have to be careful
about setting specifics because a lot of people will say I
qualify for one. We probably maybe need to look for some kind
of process for determining some kind of assessment as to what
is needed nationwide, so we get a feel as to what is more
appropriate. Would that be okay to kind of look at a study that
would look at the whole country as a whole?
Mr. Fossella. I always believe that this should be an
American model for determining and assessing the need. So I
would be open to that as well.
Mr. Rodriguez. Because I know that some of the local
communities and counties would be willing to donate the
property and those kinds of things to help in this process or
in sharing the cost.
Mr. Fossella. I would be happy to look at that.
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fossella. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. And Ms. Berkley, would
you like to ask some questions?
Ms. Berkley. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First,
I want to thank the two of you very much for being here. I
appreciate it very much and support all three pieces of
legislation. Chairman Rahall, the fact that veterans from
Korea, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama have not been recognized and
are not eligible for the veterans pension benefits I think is
absurd. I am delighted that you have brought this to our
attention. I have a question for you though, because the State
of Nevada has no national veterans cemetery. We have two State
cemeteries: one in Reno, Nevada, which services the northern
part of our State; one in Boulder City, which services southern
Nevada, primarily the Las Vegas-Henderson area. But my question
to you is, I thought I heard a snippet where you said that
State law prohibits you from having State cemeteries as well?
Mr. Fossella. Yes. New York is--I don't know if it is
exclusive but it is somewhat unique in the fact that it
actually had a law passed in the 1980s, to prohibit the
establishment of State cemeteries, similar to what you have in
Nevada. And we have spent the last several years of trying to
undo that, within understanding that there may not be a
straight out Federal cemetery, but at least we would have the
option that you have in Nevada to establish a State cemetery
for veterans, and we are working on a legislative fix to try to
undo that to allow that option.
Ms. Berkley. Well, I am very supportive of your legislation
as well. I thank you both for coming in and spending time with
us.
Mr. Fossella. Thank you.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Ms. Berkley. In a minute, we will give
you a chance, if you would like, to make a statement about your
legislation, H.R. 1273.
Ms. Berkley. I look forward to the opportunity.
Mr. Hall. And so do we. But first, I just have a couple of
brief questions, Mr. Rahall. I am curious about the genesis of
your legislative efforts on H.R. 1900 and H.R. 1901, how they
came to pass. You seem to have identified something that maybe
many of us thought about or many of us might have missed.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bill came about
based on resolutions introduced by the American Legion. They
actually had a resolution containing almost the exact same
language. They certainly have recognized the oversight that
exists in our efforts in providing both of these pieces of
legislation. I might add as well that the Congressional Budget
Office has not scored these bills, so I cannot give you an
estimate yet on what it might cost. But again, that is not a
major, nor I think, even a contributing factor to a decision on
this legislation.
Mr. Hall. I would agree with that. Since there hasn't been
a declaration of war involved with many of our military
activities since 1941. Since World War II, the last time we
declared war, it has been some other instrument that has
legislatively given the power to engage in military conflicts
to the executive branch. Some might say we should go back to
having a declaration of war so the entire country is involved
in a full debate about the wisdom of the undertaking. But in
the meanwhile, those who have served in all these conflicts
that you cover in your legislation certainly deserve the same
pension and the same benefits as veterans who served in prior
wars.
Congressman Fossella, I just wanted to ask you, I am
curious about the New York State law. What do you think the
intent was behind that law? And would it need to be repealed?
Mr. Fossella. It would be great to get a State law passed
similar to many States, whether it is Nevada or many across the
country. My understanding, if my recollection is correct, it
was more of a financial situation that the State of New York
was in. If I am not mistaken, they were looking for every way
possible to save money, for lack of a better phrase. And I
think it was rooted in that. I think it was misguided. But in
the meantime, it has taken more than 20 years to try to undo.
Mr. Hall. And do you have a cost estimate or ballpark idea
of the costs associated with either a cemetery or a mausoleum
on Staten Island?
Mr. Fossella. Well, it is a function, Mr. Chairman, of how
big it would ultimately be. There are estimates of the
mausoleum, anywhere from $20 million to $30 million to
construct. But as you can imagine, to have vacant land for a
cemetery is a little different than constructing a mausoleum up
front, because that is more of a fixed cost, and therefore, I
think it is an up front cost that not necessarily share it as
just a cemetery would be. But there could be a partnership
between the Federal and the State Government, whereby veterans
would get compensation for being buried or interred at the
mausoleum.
So it is, in large part, how big is the house and how much
is the house going to cost. It would be a function of what the
local veterans organizations would deem to be sufficient. There
are some sketches, some renderings. But roughly the numbers
have been thrown around of $20 million or $30 million.
Mr. Hall. Well, given the cost of real estate in any of the
boroughs, Staten Island included, I would guess that you are
probably at least competitive with, if not a lower final figure
than a cemetery.
Mr. Fossella. Well, it was very, very difficult. We had a
task force created a few years ago to just search the island
for land that would meet the Federal criteria. And with the
exception of just the outlying areas of the Fresh Kills
Landfill, there wasn't really anything which led to the
veterans agreeing to a smaller parcel of property than the
mausoleum, because I think if we did not have the mausoleum
option, it would not be possible at all.
Mr. Hall. Was there any opposition from veterans to the
idea of a mausoleum?
Mr. Fossella. No. I asked the veterans organizations, every
one of them on Staten Island, represented wonderfully by the
flags behind you I see for the most part, to join together and
come up and let them drive the process, let them come to an
agreement as to what they could live with and support. And it
is as a result of that that we are pushing for not just this
legislation, but specifically for a mausoleum.
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much. Mr. Smith, do you have
anything you would like to ask?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lamborn may have
questions when he arrives or for the record.
Mr. Hall. Very good. We will make sure they are entered in
the record as far as these two witnesses are concerned.
Congressman Rahall, Congressman Fossella, thank you again
for your testimony, and you are now excused. I am sure you have
a busy day yet ahead of you.
Mr. Rahall. I am going back to my Committee where Mr.
Lamborn is my Ranking Member right now.
Mr. Fossella. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. We hear Mr. Lamborn is on his way. So we are
looking forward to seeing him.
And now we will invite our second panel to the witness
table. Mr. Carl Blake, National Legislative Director of
Paralyzed Veterans of America; Mr. Eric Hilleman, Deputy
Director of the National Legislative Service for the Veterans
of Foreign Wars (VFW); Mr. Robert Fells, External Chief
Operating Officer and General Counsel, International Cemetery
and Cremation and Funeral Association; Mr. Raymond C. Kelley,
Legislative Director for the American Veterans (AMVETS); and,
Mr. Alec S. Petkoff, Assistant Director for Veterans Affairs
and Rehabilitation Commission for the American Legion.
Very good. Thank you all for staying with us and for your
service, and your work and your patience.
Mr. Blake, I will recognize you for 5 minutes. Your
statement is entered in the record already.
STATEMENTS OF CARL BLAKE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA; ERIC A. HILLEMAN, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN
WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; ROBERT M. FELLS, EXTERNAL CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER AND GENERAL COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL CEMETERY,
CREMATION AND FUNERAL ASSOCIATION; RAYMOND C. KELLEY,
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN VETERANS (AMVETS); AND ALEC S.
PETKOFF, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND
REHABILITATION COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION
STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE
Mr. Blake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Members
of the Subcommittee, on behalf of Paralyzed Veterans of
America, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be
here today to testify on this important legislation. PVA
generally supports all of the legislation being considered here
today. With this in mind, I will limit my comments to only a
couple of the bills on the agenda. H.R. 1900 will extend
eligibility for pension benefits from the VA to veterans who
receive an expeditionary medal during a period of military
service other than a period of war. Likewise, H.R. 1901 will
expend eligibility for pension benefits for veterans that
served in the military during specified periods of military
engagement.
Expeditionary medals were awarded to a servicemember who
participated in or was in support of one of the many operations
of the U.S. military. Operations such as the invasion of
Grenada in 1983 or the invasion of Panama in 1989 and many
other special operations missions involved performance of
duties that sometimes resulted in serious injury or loss of
life.
However, these operations were not a declared period of
war. PVA supports the extension of benefits as defined in H.R.
1900 and 1901. However, we would like to see these pension
benefits extended to all active military that served during
those periods, not just those individuals who served in the
specific theater. The expeditionary medal was awarded to
participants of a military operation but all military personnel
may have been called upon to serve during these critical
periods. We feel that all Members of the military serving
during one of those periods should receive this pension if they
meet the other qualifications of the benefit.
PVA supports H.R. 2697. This legislation will complement
legislation enacted during the 109th Congress. At that time the
specially adapted housing grant was made available to
servicemembers that were severely injured and still in the
military so that they might begin taking steps to modify their
homes even before being discharged. This legislation will allow
servicemembers awaiting discharged to be eligible for mortgage
life insurance. This provision is perfectly reasonable, as
these men and women will be eligible for the benefit once they
are a veteran anyway.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I would like
to, once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I
would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much, Mr. Blake.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blake appears on p. 33.]
Mr. Hall. Now we will recognize Mr. Hilleman for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERIC A. HILLEMAN
Mr. Hilleman. Thank you Chairman Hall, Congressman
Rodriguez, Congresswoman Berkley. Thank you for today's
hearing. And thank you for allowing the Veterans of Foreign
Wars to present our views on the legislation pending today.
Today it is my distinct pleasure to be accompanied by my
father, Edward A. Hilleman. He taught me about service to
community and to Nation. He is a Vietnam veteran, having served
two tours as a Marine in Chu Lai. He received an honorable
discharge in 1968 and returned to St. Louis, Missouri, joining
our family business, a local funeral home. For nearly 40 years,
he has been active in organizations such as the VFW and the
American Legion. Through the family business, he has seen the
rising cost of medical expenses and funerals take their toll on
families.
The benefit bills we are discussing today are a small cost
toward the dignity and the memory of those who have sacrificed
so much for our Nation. The VFW's views on the pending
legislation are as follows: We support H.R. 674. This bill
would repeal the sunset date for the Advisory Committee on
Minority Veterans scheduled for December 31 of 2009. We support
H.R. 1273, a restoration of plot allowance eligibility for
veterans. This bill allows for $300 plot allowance for service-
connected disabled veterans or period war veterans. It grants
the authority to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
reimbursed deceased veterans families for nongovernment
headstone marker, or in lieu of furnishing a Government marker.
The VFW fully supports H.R. 1900, which extends the eligibility
for veterans pension benefits to veterans who receive an
expeditionary medal for a period of service other than a period
of war. This law recognizes the change in use of the military
in past and future conflicts, such as our Nation's involvement
in Somalia from 1992 to 1993, Bosnia from 1992 to 2002, and
current operations in the Horn of Africa.
Under current law, these servicemembers and their families
do not receive benefits that aid families through great periods
of stress. The VFW supports H.R. 1901. This bill would extend
the eligibility for pension benefits under the laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
servicemembers that have risked life and limb in the Korean
Peninsula, Lebanon and Grenada.
The next bill, H.R. 2346, would direct the VA Secretary to
establish a process for determining whether a geographic area
is sufficiently served by the national cemeteries located in
the geographic area. The work envisioned under, H.R. 2346, is
accomplished by the National Cemetery Administration. Under
Public Law 106-117 and Public Law 108-109, the NCA is required
to report annually to Congress for establishment of additional
cemeteries.
A strategic plan is formulated, serving areas determined
for appropriate cemeteries. The site selection process takes
into account population centers and travel distances. It weighs
the views of State and local veterans organizations and
solicits other information and views that the Secretary
considers are knowledgeable in these matters. We believe the
current process sufficiently addresses the needs of veterans
and their families. And as such, we view this legislation as
duplicative of the efforts already in place by the National
Cemetery Administration. We support H.R. 2696 Veterans'
Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007. This bill increases
the plot allowance to $400. As a coauthor of the Independent
Budget (IB), we have strongly advocated increasing the burial
plot allowance. We believe moving the amount closer to the IB
recommendations of $745 would better serve veterans and their
families to settle the affairs of a departed loved one.
This legislation also includes a provision to abolish grant
filing deadlines for veterans State cemeteries. The VFW has no
position on this provision of this proposed legislation. The
VFW supports H.R. 2697, legislation to expand eligibility for
veterans mortgage life insurance to include Members of the
armed services receiving specialty adapted housing assistance
from VA.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I look forward
to any questions from the Subcommittee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman appears on p. 35.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much, Mr. Hilleman. Now the Chair
will recognize Mr. Fells for 5 minutes. Once again, your
statement is already in the record. So feel free to adapt it as
you wish.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. FELLS
Mr. Fells. Thank you very much, Chairman Hall, Members of
the Subcommittee. We appreciate your invitation to have us here
today. And I will just summarize. I am not going to read my
printed statement, just make a few points. First of all, I
really would like to commend and applaud Congresswoman Berkley
on her leadership on H.R. 1273. I hate to become
autobiographical, but this issue goes back with both my
association, even myself for so many years. My association was
actually instrumental back in 1973 when the National Cemeteries
Act was being debated here in Congress in advocating the plot
allowance be added because we knew there was were so many
veterans and their families that already had burial spaces in
private or religious cemeteries and that is where they wanted
to be buried. We felt the choice should be up to the veterans
if they wanted to opt for burial in national cemeteries or
State veterans cemeteries, fine. But if they would prefer
interment for personal or ethnic or religious reasons in
private and religious cemeteries, they should also get a
certain modicum of burial benefits as well.
Later, as you know, the marker allowance was enacted for
many people who preferred to purchase their own style and type
of monument or marker other than the Government issued marker.
They wouldn't really get anymore than anyone else because the
allowance was based on the Government's wholesale cost of
providing the VA markers, minus, in fact, an administrative
fee. When it ended around 1990, it was only up to $88. But it
helped. It helped a lot of people. In some cases, families
already had a monument, but there were costs involved with the
last dates and things like putting the deceased's name on the
marker.
So the marker allowance was also very helpful in
facilitating these. I remember I was here in this room, in
1990, when the hearing was held to curtail the plot allowance
from the wartime veterans and to totally eliminate the marker
allowance. And the individuals who sat up where you are sitting
today said, we have to do this to help balance the Federal
budget. I don't think anyone believed that then. And today it
looks even more preposterous.
So I will just conclude by saying that the thing to
remember about H.R. 1273, all the bills here today are fine and
ought to be acted upon favorably. But H.R. 1273 is unique in
that it is not attempting to create or expand any new benefits.
It is attempting to restore two benefits that never should have
been taken away from veterans, particularly the veterans
serving during times of war, never should have been taken away
in the first place. So we would urge you to act very favorably
on this. Thanks very much, and I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Fells.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fells appears on p. 36.]
Mr. Hall. The Chair will now recognize Mr. Kelley for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND C. KELLEY
Mr. Kelley. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for providing AMVETS the opportunity to
testify regarding pending legislation on minority veterans,
memorial affairs and disability pension benefits. Over the past
12 years, the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, with
their unique insight, has provided timely accurate information
and recommendations on potential barriers which are
unintentionally in place, often causing minority veterans a
lower quality of care. Although these barriers are not limited
to minorities, the Advisory Committee's perspective provides an
ability to identify the root of the problem and submit
recommendations, which often develop into legislative proposals
and inevitably helps all veterans. AMVETS wholly supports H.R.
674's repeal of the sunset provision, maintaining the Advisory
Committee on Minority Veterans.
Mr. Chairman, it should be at the root of our Nation's
conscience to honor those servicemembers who are willing to
stand in harm's way at our Government's request. And the
highest request we can pay is to honor the lives of our
veterans after they have passed away. H.R. 1273, H.R. 2696 and
H.R. 2346 promote this honor as well as offset the cost
incurred by the families when the loved one passes on. AMVETS
supports H.R. 1273 in restoring veterans plot allowance
eligibility and headstone and marker allowance, but would
encourage an amendment to include eligible veterans, not just
veterans who served during wartime. AMVETS also supports an
increase in burial assistance for $300 to $400. However, Mr.
Chairman, the amount should be increased to $745. This
increased amount would make current payments proportionally
equal to the amount paid when the benefit was initially
provided in 1973. AMVETS wholly supports H.R. 2346, as it
assists VA in meeting the spirit of its goal of providing 85
percent of veterans with burial options within 75 miles of
their residences. AMVETS supports H.R. 1900 and H.R. 1901, as
they update and clarify veterans who are eligible for pension
benefits. In the same light, Mr. Chairman, AMVETS supports H.R.
2697.
However, due to Title 38's definition of veteran,
administrative amendments may need to be enacted to include
Members of the Armed Forces throughout Chapter 21, Title 38, to
clarify servicemembers' eligibility for adaptive housing
assistance, which this resolution will ensure. Mr. Chairman,
this concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelley appears on p. 37.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Kelley. I think we are all getting
into the spirit of this week by keeping our testimony short.
The green light stays on. And Mr. Petkoff, now you are
recognized for 5 minutes. Your statement is in the written
record.
STATEMENT OF ALEC S. PETKOFF
Mr. Petkoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to
present the American Legion's views on this important pending
legislation. The American Legion gives its full support to H.R.
674, which will repeal the provision of the law requiring
termination of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans,
H.R. 1273, which restores plot allowance eligibility for
veterans of any war and restores the headstone or marker
allowance; and H.R. 2697, which addresses the expansion of the
veterans mortgage life insurance.
Whether it be transitioning out of the military or mourning
a loved one, these bills impact veterans and their families at
their most vulnerable moments. As long as there is the
military, and as long as we have minority populations who are
serving who have particular needs and sensitivities, we will
always need the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. The
plot allowance and headstone or marker allowance that was once
for all veterans who served in the time of war should be
restored. And if a servicemember has been awarded a grant for
the VA benefit of especially adaptive housing, then it makes
sense that they should also be eligible for the veterans
mortgage life insurance.
Now the American Legion does support the intent of H.R.
1901, which extends eligibility for pension benefits to
veterans who served during certain periods of time and
specified locations. With the exception of Vietnam for the
period of February 28, 1961, to August 4, 1964, wartime service
was wartime service, and location was not an issue. The
inclusion of location requirements seems overly restrictive and
contrary to spirit and intent of nonservice connected pension
benefits. Eligibility for benefits for all other periods
require one day of active duty during a time of war with no
location requirements. American Legion recommends removing
location requirements from the bill. H.R. 2346, the American
Legion supports the intent of that bill as well, which
establishes process for determining whether geographic areas
sufficiently served by the national cemeteries located in
geographic area. While the American Legion fully supports the
intent of the bill, it does have some concern about the
addition of mausoleums to VA's national cemeteries. The main
concerns being how would they conform to the national shrine
commitment?
And more importantly, is the idea what most veterans want
and approve of. And the American Legion recommends that, of
course, that continues to be further studied. And finally, H.R.
2696, the Veterans' Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007,
while some increase to the burial plot allowance is better than
no increase, the suggested amounts offer only a small
improvement to the current costs involved in paying for a
funeral. The American Legion recommends that an increase that
better reflects the current costs of a funeral be instated. The
American Legion also supports the intent of section 2(b), which
would repeal the time limitation for filing for that
reimbursement. Thank you for allowing the American Legion to
present its views on the testimony. And I would be happy to try
to answer any questions the Committee may have.
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much, Mr. Petkoff.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Petkoff appears on p. 38.]
Mr. Hall. Before we go to questions, I would like to turn
to Representative Berkley and ask her if she would tell us
about H.R. 1273.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY
Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I
want to thank you and the Subcommittee for considering this
plot and marker allowance restoration bill today. I also want
to thank Bob Fells. This is not a mutual admiration society,
but I appreciated your kind words. I appreciate the assistance
you have given me in the last few years on this important
legislation.
As veterans from previous wars age and countless national
heroes continue to serve our country, paying for the burial
expenses of veterans is a serious concern for many families. We
are in the position today to ease the burden on veterans'
families during this most difficult time when they are burying
a loved one. When I first ran for Congress back in 1998, when I
started meeting with veterans' families just to learn about the
issues, I was astounded when one family after another brought
up the fact that the cost of burying their loved one, their
veteran, was so difficult for them and such a terrible
challenge. I vowed back then, 10 years ago in 1997, that I
would try to do something about it. H.R. 1273 would expand the
veterans plot allowance eligibility and reinstate the headstone
marker allowance for use in private and religious cemeteries.
In 1990, Congress curtailed the eligibility of wartime
veterans to receive the plot allowance unless they were
receiving VA compensation or pension benefits or died of
service-connected injuries. Congress also eliminated the marker
allowance which provided a cash reimbursement to veterans and
their families who preferred to purchase their own marker or
headstone for placement in a private cemetery. I can only
imagine how you felt sitting here in 1990 and watching this
unfold before your eyes.
My bill would restore the $300 plot allowance for burial in
a private or religious ceremony to a veteran of any war
regardless of whether or not they were receiving veterans
benefits. It would also provide a cost-based reimbursement for
a headstone or marker to veterans and their families who prefer
to purchase their own for placement in a private ceremony. As
we have heard from our veterans service organizations (VSO)
representatives, they support the bill. They also believe that
the plot allowance should be increased beyond the $300 amount.
Unfortunately, my timing wasn't perfect, but I have
reintroduced legislation that does exactly this.
While I know Mr. Lamborn's legislation calls for going from
$300 to $400, I quite agree with you, that isn't where we need
to be. We need to go back to the original intent of the
legislation and keep up with the current costs. That $300
should be $745. That is in a companion piece of legislation,
and when we move toward the floor, I would like to incorporate
the two pieces of legislation. This should not pass with the
$300 allowance. It has got to be the $745.
I introduced it this morning, as a matter of fact. So we
can start moving that along as well. While I was in the
cloakroom in the last series of votes, there was a flash on the
television saying that we are now offering a $20,000 signing
bonus for people that are willing to go to Iraq immediately.
Certainly, if we can afford a $20,000 signing bonus to get
people into the theater of war, for those that do not return
from the theater of war alive, we can find $745 to take care of
their burial needs. I urge all of my colleagues to not only
support these pieces of legislation but to cosponsor these
pieces of legislation. We have had a difficult time getting
cosponsors. I think we ought to all be signing onto each
other's bills. I want to thank all of you for being here. I
appreciated your testimony and I yield back whatever time I
have left.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Ms. Berkley. We are now happy to have
been joined by Ranking Member Mr. Lamborn, who I will now
recognize for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I couldn't
be here earlier because I was finishing another Committee
hearing going on at the same time. In fact, I left that one
early. But thank you for holding this hearing, and in my July
10th letter to you, asking for this hearing, I asked also that
we have a hearing on H.R. 3047, the ``Veterans Claims
Processing Innovation Act of 2007,'' which is developing broad
bipartisan support. This bill will bring VA's compensation and
pension system into the 21st century.
By increasing accountability and leveraging technology at
the Veterans Benefits Administration, this bill would improve
the accuracy and speed of benefits claims. And I recommend it
to the attention of my colleagues. While I was disappointed
that testimony on H.R. 3047 will not be heard today, I am
encouraged by your promise, Mr. Chairman, to hold another
hearing on this bill when Congress comes back in September. It
would go without saying that I also anticipate the opportunity
to review your own legislation to reduce the backlog once that
is offered.
This afternoon, we are in the middle of considering several
pieces of legislation, all of which are of interest and
potential value. Two of these bills bear my name, H.R. 2696 and
H.R. 2697. A third, H.R. 2346, introduced by Mr. Fossella
directly, addresses how we determine the location of a national
cemetery and it is most timely. I look forward to working with
Mr. Fossella on H.R. 2346. This is an important bill that will
help provide veterans and their families with greater access to
national cemeteries.
And I believe it will help the VA create an even better and
more accurate and beneficial selection process. The two bills I
introduced support similar bills introduced by Senator Larry
Craig of Idaho over in the Senate. H.R. 2696, the ``Veterans'
Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007,'' which has been
mentioned earlier will increase the burial and plot allowance
for veterans' burial in a private cemetery from $300 to $400.
That is an issue that we are looking at from a couple of
different angles. The bill also repealed the current time
limitation for State reimbursement for interment costs by VA.
From time to time, a State locates the remains of veterans who
were not interred. When States inter these veterans, they
cannot be reimbursed by VA because of the time limit on
reimbursement costs, and this bill would repeal that
limitation. The last provision of the bill would authorize the
VA Secretary to make additional grants to States for improving
and expanding States' veterans cemeteries.
States would have to submit an application to the Secretary
and could receive up to $5 million. H.R. 2697 would extend
eligibility for veterans mortgage life insurance or VMLI to
Members of the Armed Forces. VMLI is a special type of life
insurance that is only available to veterans who qualify for
specially adapted housing grants. Many of our Nation's injured
active-duty servicemembers will eventually qualify for VMLI and
would benefit by having this eligibility. These are just three
of the bills before us today. I look forward to the remainder
of the testimony and our discussion of the other legislation
before us today. My thanks to my colleagues and the witnesses
for their testimony. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Lamborn appears on
p. 31.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. Let me just ask a couple
of quick questions myself. Mr. Blake, in your testimony, you
stated that you would like to see pension benefits that would
be provided under H.R. 1900 extended to all active military
that served during the given periods, not just in the specific
year. Do you know approximately how many veterans this would
be?
Mr. Blake. I certainly don't know. I think it was made
evident when the question was posed to the previous panel that
they didn't know either. I would be curious to know what the
answer is, actually.
Mr. Hall. Okay. We could probably find that out. You also
stated, regarding H.R. 2346, that a projection of future needs
could provide helpful information to the States as they decide
whether or not to participate in the VA cemetery program. Could
you elaborate more on the specifics of what should be entailed
in these projections?
Mr. Blake. I would prefer to do it in writing, if I could,
sir. It is kind of a broad question, I think, with a lot of
considerations.
Mr. Hall. You are welcome to submit further thoughts along
those lines in writing.
Mr. Fells, I was curious about whether you would consider
the $300 plot allowance sufficient or whether you would join
Mr. Petkoff and Ms. Berkley in going for some higher number for
this benefit.
Mr. Fells. A higher number would be much more realistic.
The $150 plot allowance back in 1973 had a lot more purchasing
power than $300 does today. As a practical matter, we are
willing to take baby steps and get the eligibility back to
receive the benefits. But yes, to be practical, the higher
amounts are much more helpful.
Mr. Hall. From your viewpoint, is the cost for a mausoleum
typically more or less, as far as maintenance, construction and
other costs, than a cemetery?
Mr. Fells. Good question, sir. With a mausoleum, you are
maintaining a building. But you really have to add up all the
factors. For example, with ground burial, typical ground
burial, you have opening and closing costs, you have the
addition of a vault or outer burial container, you have the
addition of a monument or marker that needs to be maintained.
Frequently they will sink or tilt especially in the first 6
months or years. You don't have the costs I just mentioned with
mausoleum entombment.
So depending on what your costs are, it could be six of
one, half dozen of another. Mausoleum entombment should not be
looked at as necessarily cost savings, but it is not
necessarily cost prohibitive either.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. Mr. Kelley, in your testimony, you
stated that AMVETS supports H.R. 1900 and H.R. 1901, but you
have concerns on the need to update and clarify the eligibility
of veterans. Could you further explain that concern? And what
sorts of updates and clarifications do you think are needed?
Mr. Kelley. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The concern is in H.R.
2697 with inclusion of Members of the Armed Forces. It includes
in legislation in H.R. 2102 to include those personnel. But if
you look in H.R. 2103, the Secretary has the authority to
provide veterans plans for housing units and things along those
lines. And as it reads, those would not be afforded to the
Members of the military. So just administrative amendments to
update those also.
Mr. Hall. Thank you for that clarification. Mr. Petkoff,
there seems to be a disconnect between the recommendations
provided by ACMV in its reports and the implementation of these
recommendations even when they are accepted by the VA Center
for Minority Veterans. Given that 28 percent of all OEF/OIF
veterans are minorities and given that the VA reports
minorities comprised approximately 20 percent of all veterans,
do you believe that the VA has adequate resources in place to
address the needs of minority veterans?
Mr. Petkoff. Well, I think that they are best advised by
the Council. And that is why I think we need to keep that
Council in place. They are the experts in that field, and I
know they are working with VA and with VSOs to make sure that
minority veterans are serviced and are reached. I think
outreach is a critical factor that is involved. And I think
they have over 300 centers to help reach minority veterans and
actually to help faculty administration in the sensitivities of
and nuances of reaching minority veterans. And so that needs to
be maintained. And if necessarily increased, I think that would
be up to the Council to decide.
Mr. Hall. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Blake. Mr. Chairman, could I go back and address one of
your questions? Having had a couple of minutes to think about
it, your question about the State cemeteries, the PVA along
with the organizations that have participated in the
Independent Budget have always sort of supported the idea of
the State cemeteries grants program and encourages States to
get involved in this process to maybe alleviate some of the
pressure on the National Cemetery Administration. However, some
States have been hesitant to participate in those programs
because there is still a lot of associated costs with the
States when they develop these State cemeteries that they will
have to manage.
And I think through this legislation maybe there will be
some way of demonstrating to the State that there is a need for
a cemetery of some sort to serve this population of veterans,
where in previous--in the past, States might not have been
willing to participate because they didn't have maybe concrete
enough or solid enough information to suggest that they should
participate in the State cemetery grants program. I don't know
if maybe that answers your question a little.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Blake. Thank you very much.
We will turn to Ranking Member Lamborn now for questions.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just have three. Mr.
Hilleman from the VFW, you stated that the process in H.R.
2346, which is a bill introduced by Mr. Fossella of New York,
is duplicative. That bill would direct the VA to take some
criteria into account when deciding what are located national
cemetery that I am not sure the VA does take into account right
now, including the average amount of fees charged to an
individual traveling on the major roads leading to a national
cemetery, the availability of public transportation for
purposes of traveling to a national cemetery, the average
amount of time it takes someone to go to the nearest other
national cemetery, population density and average distance
someone must travel to reach the nearest national cemetery. Are
those things that the VA is taking into account right now? Or
do they have a lot more limited set of criteria?
Mr. Hilleman. To be honest, sir, I am not intimately
familiar with the mechanisms the VA uses to judge cemeteries. I
know they are based on population centers and distances from
population centers. In regards to travel time from point A to
point B, I know there is a concern in areas like New York where
cemeteries in heavy traffic might be 2 to 3 hours or 4 to 5
hours, when, in reality, the distance is quite near. We would
be happy to work with your staff and the Committee staff and
come to some sort of greater understanding of this bill
together. The VFW is not opposed to working with the VA to
reshape the mechanisms. But we want to make sure that it is not
done haphazardly, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Fells, a bill I have
introduced, H.R. 2696, in section 2, repeals the limitation for
State filing for reimbursement for interment costs. Have any of
your Members been affected by the current law, which has a 1-
year time limitation for reimbursements for interment costs to
the State?
Mr. Fells. Sir, we represent the private cemeteries, the
private and religious so they wouldn't be--as far as I know--
wouldn't be affected by that itself.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you. And on a different note, this
isn't a bill before us today. But the respect for America's
fallen heroes act that was passed last year, have you heard of
demonstrations taking place where people are not following the
requirements of that law and creating problems?
Mr. Fells. There have been incidents. Yes, there are. And
occasionally, our Members call on us for help. Our Members are
very good at sharing. We have a listserve, for example. So one
Member could say yes, that happened with a funeral of burial
interment we had a couple months ago, let me tell you what we
did, how we got together with the police, et cetera. So yes,
these things are definitely happening.
Mr. Lamborn. Do you think that that calls for a need for us
to re-examine and maybe fine-tune that law?
Mr. Fells. I would say so because, again, we represent the
private sector. So it just isn't the national or the State
veterans cemeteries that are affected by these protests, but
all the cemeteries are affected by them. So yes, I would
certainly urge that as well.
Mr. Lamborn. And do you have any specific suggestions on
how to do that?
Mr. Fells. Not at this time. But if I could get back to
you, I am sure we could propose some specifics.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. We would like to hear from you. Thank you. I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Berkley. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. Yes, Ms. Berkley.
Ms. Berkley. I would like to ask Mr. Lamborn, because that
is a concern of mine as well. I was actively engaged in the
passage of that legislation. Forgive me for not remembering if
there is an enforcement mechanism. I know in Congress, we pass
a law and then we pass it again and again and again, because
people are not complying with it. But is there no compliance?
What is the mechanism by which we get people to comply?
Mr. Lamborn. Ms. Berkley, I would like to work with you on
that. I was not here when Congress passed that.
Ms. Berkley. I know.
Mr. Lamborn. However, in Colorado, we did a similar version
of a State law.
Ms. Berkley. Because it would seem to me, if we have got a
Federal law and people are in violation of it, they would get
themselves arrested and they would go to jail or at least they
would have a trial and would go to jail. So I am not sure if we
just need to enforce the laws we have already got on the books
or if we would need to pass further legislation. I do not know
what the enforcing mechanism is in the legislation, but like
with so many other things, the law exists; it is a matter of
enforcing the law.
Mr. Hall. I think we can take a look at the existing law
and see if the enforcement mechanisms or penalties are
sufficient.
Mr. Blake. I think the thing about the respect for the
fallen heroes' law, if I remember correctly, is that it
principally applies to demonstrations, national cemeteries or
State veteran cemeteries and not at all toward private
cemeteries, which is another issue, and maybe that could be
extended. I think the issue comes up again that Congressman
Lamborn brought up as it relates to State law in some fashion
too, but the reason that it does not apply in a lot of these
cases is because that law was targeted at national and State
veterans cemeteries, and that was it.
Mr. Hall. Thank you for the clarification.
Ms. Berkley. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. If my colleagues on the other side would agree, I
would recognize Mr. Hare now, since he joined us most recently,
for questions or statements.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I
only have one question, and I thank you for your indulgence,
and my apologies to the panel for getting here late.
Mr. Blake, just one question here. In the testimony that
you gave, you expressed support for all of the bills that are
currently here before us today. I would like to know from your
perspective what changes you would recommend to any of these
bills or to expand the scope of them or to ensure that they are
implemented effectively.
So in other words, from your perspective, what do you think
of these? I know you support them, but what could we do to make
it better? I will ask anybody on the panel for that matter.
Mr. Blake. Well, I think generally they are all good
legislations. I spoke toward the suggestions we had with
regards to H.R. 1900 and H.R. 1901 in my oral statement.
The other bill that I would look at goes back to the plot
allowance issue as it relates to the recommendations of the
Independent Budget. We certainly support, I believe--one of the
gentleman on the panel here mentioned that $400 does not quite
address what we have. But as to no increase versus some
increase, we will take some increase first. We certainly would
like to see it raised to a level that is included in the
Independent Budget, which is more than $400. Anything from here
is just enhancing what has already been proposed. I do not
think there is anything that is bad to begin with.
Mr. Hare. Anybody else on the panel? Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Rodriguez, no questions?
Thank you very much, everybody, from the panel. I think we
will, at this point, thank you for your testimony and for your
service, and you are now excused.
We are just hearing another vote being called. So let me
just ask the panel here, do we want to have the third panel
come and give their testimony?
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Chairman, if I could suggest, if there is
only one witness for the last panel and if he took up to the 5
minutes, we would still be able to get over and vote in time.
Mr. Hall. That is correct, so that would be my thought as
well.
So we will ask our third panelist to join us, Mr. Bradley
Mayes, Director of Compensation and Pension Service for the
Veterans Benefits Administration, the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, accompanied by Ms. Lucretia McClenney,
Director for the Center for Minority Veterans for the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Richard Hipolit, Assistant
General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
and Mr. Ronald E. Walters, Director of the Office of Finance
and Planning for the National Cemetery Administration of the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Thank you all for your
patience.
Your statement, Mr. Mayes, is in the record, and you are
now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRADLEY G. MAYES, DIRECTOR, COMPENSATION AND
PENSION SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. RICHARD
HIPOLIT, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS, MS. LUCRETIA McCLENNEY, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR MINORITY
VETERANS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND MR. RONALD
E. WALTERS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, NATIONAL
CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Mayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lamborn,
and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for having us here
today.
Mr. Chairman, we will address today only those bills for
which the administration was able to coordinate its views in
the time provided. We will address the remaining bills in a
subsequent letter to the Subcommittee.
[The Administration views for H.R. 1273, H.R. 1900, and
H.R. 1901 appear on p. 43.]
I will start with H.R. 674.
This bill would repeal the current statutory requirement
terminating the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans as of
December 31, 2009. The Department of Veterans Affairs supports
this bill. The Committee is composed of veterans of all ranks
and services appointed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Members represent the five minority groups the Center for
Minority Veterans is mandated to oversee. It advises the
Secretary and Congress on VA's administration of benefits and
provision of healthcare to minority veterans, and assesses the
needs of minority veterans and reviews programs.
Among other things, the Committee meets with senior
officials to discuss services and programs available for
minority veterans, and receives briefings from all of the
administrations and other staff offices. Finally, on this bill,
the cost associated with enactment would be minimal,
approximately $80,000 per year.
Regarding H.R. 2346, this bill would direct the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to develop a process for determining
whether a geographic area is sufficiently served by the
national cemeteries located in that geographic area. This bill
would require that the process take into account the number of
veterans in the area, the average distance a resident would
have to travel, the population density, the amount of time it
takes the resident to travel to the nearest cemetery, the
availability of public transportation, and the average amount
of any fees charged to an individual traveling on the major
roads. If land sufficient to establish a national cemetery is
not available to VA in a geographic area, then VA would be
required under this bill to consider alternatives to
establishing a cemetery, including establishing a mausoleum.
Currently, the VA seeks to ensure that a national cemetery
is located within a 75-mile radius of a deceased veteran's
residence. One of the criteria for selecting the site of a new
national cemetery is a veteran population of 170,000 that is
not served by a national cemetery or by a State veteran
cemetery.
The six new national cemeteries authorized by the National
Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003, as well as the six cemeteries
authorized by the Veterans Millennium Healthcare and Benefits
Act, which was enacted in 1999, satisfy these criteria. VA is
in the process of evaluating the entire memorial benefits
program, and we expect to complete that program evaluation by
April 2008. We believe that it would be prudent to consider the
results of that program evaluation before developing this new
process that the bill would require.
Therefore, we do oppose this bill at this moment because
the measures in the bill have not had the benefit of the
program evaluation that is underway. Because we cannot know the
full extent of the processes involved in this bill, we are
unable to estimate the costs that would result.
Regarding H.R. 2696, the ``Veterans' Dignified Burial
Assistance Act of 2007,'' this bill would increase from $300 to
$400 the amount of reimbursement allowed for the cost of a
burial plot or interment for a veteran who is eligible for
burial in a national cemetery but who is buried in a State or
in a private cemetery. This was last increased by public law
107-103 in 2001.
Section 2(b) of the bill would nullify the 2-year time
limitation for States to file claims for the plot or interment
allowance as applied to claims in connection with the interment
of deceased veterans' unclaimed remains. section 2(b) would be
retroactively effective as of October 1, 2006.
For the same reason that we opposed H.R. 2346, we oppose
this bill. That evaluation, the program evaluation that is
underway, will assess the appropriateness of VA's current
burial benefits based on data obtained and beneficiary needs.
We believe that it would be premature to take a position on
section 2 of the bill until that program evaluation is
completed, and accordingly we defer taking a position on that.
The enactment of section 2(a) would result in costs of $7.2
million for the first year and $77 million over 10 years. The
enactment of Section 2(b) would result in insignificant costs.
Section 2(c) of the bill would authorize the VA to provide up
to $5 million annually in grants to States or to tribal
organizations for operating and maintaining--and that is key--
operating and maintaining State veterans cemeteries or veterans
cemeteries on trust land owned by or held in trust for tribal
organizations. The grant program is intended to complement the
national cemetery system in providing a dignified burial place
reasonably close to where veterans live. Through the grant
program, States establish, expand, or improve cemeteries in
areas where there are no plans to create an open national
cemetery.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Mayes, excuse me. I am very sorry to
interrupt you, but the 5 minutes has expired.
Mr. Mayes. Sure.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mayes appears on p. 40.]
Mr. Hall. We are going to go across the street and take a
quorum call vote, which our friends across the aisle have
called, to make sure that we actually have a majority of
Members present, and then we are going to come back and take
questions after that. So if you would be patient with us, it is
just one vote and one run across the street, and we will be
back.
Mr. Mayes. All right, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much.
The Subcommittee stands recessed for what, we hope, is
about 10 minutes.
[Recess]
Mr. Hall. Thank you for staying with us, and I apologize
for having your testimony interrupted. We are at this point
going through, apparently, a series of delaying motions from
the minority side and I just want to apologize to the witnesses
and to the others here for these proceedings having to share in
that delay, the calling of a quorum and motions to rise,
apparently for no purpose but in taking up time.
Nonetheless, I have questions, Mr. Mayes. I guess we will
go first of all, to you and then to your colleagues.
On H.R. 674, the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans
seems to serve as a very useful and efficient tool in helping
the VA in its mission to address the needs of minority
veterans. Do you think there needs to be any improvement to the
Advisory Committee? If so, what improvements would you suggest?
Mr. Mayes. Mr. Chairman, I think the Advisory Committee is
working well. They have made a number of recommendations, in
particular, about outreach and things like that. We take those
recommendations and act upon them, where possible and where
appropriate. So I would suggest that we support the legislation
or the bill, as proposed. Continuing to have that Committee
working the way it is seems to, I think, work for us.
Mr. Hall. Thank you.
The ACMV also recommended in its latest report that the VA
should hire OEF/OIF minority veterans into the agency to ensure
Departmental sensitivity to a new generation of minority
veterans seeking services.
What processes has the VA put into place to advance this
recommendation? For instance, has the VA established processes
at the Cabinet level to ensure that all applicable agencies are
engaged?
Mr. Mayes. I would like to provide that response Mr.
Chairman.
The only thing I can say for sure is that Admiral Cooper
and Mike Walcoff from our Office of Field Operations have
emphasized that we should be hiring OEF/OIF veterans and, of
course, that would include minority OEF/OIF veterans. As far as
having a formal process in place, I would like to respond to
the Subcommittee in writing.
Mr. Hall. We would appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Mayes. Sure.
[The following information was subsequently received from
the VA.]
VA launched an initiative to hire 10 Regional Veterans Employment
Coordinators (RVEC) to assist the Department in providing employment
opportunities to severely injured OIF/OEF veterans. Five of the 10 have
been hired as of May 5, 2008. The RVECs will work with 160 local
veterans employment coordinators to link veterans, especially severely
injured veterans, to careers at the local level.
VA's National Veterans Employment Program (NVEP) has been in
existence since 2001. NVEP focuses on educating veterans and VA
selecting officials on veterans' preference statutes and how to use/
apply statutes to gain access to career opportunities in VA. As a
result of these efforts, VA has attained a workforce comprised of 31
percent veterans. VA has showcased its NVEP to other Federal agencies
and has assisted several agencies in their efforts to conduct outreach
to veterans and employ veterans. The U.S. Office of Personnel
Management tracks the achievement of all Federal agencies in hiring and
promoting veterans.
Mr. Hall. Maybe you could tell us in that same response how
you identify minority veterans, what your outreach practices
are to minority veterans and how they differ.
How do they differ, if at all, from non-minority vets in
terms of their needs or the type of outreach that you find most
effective?
You stated in your testimony that the enactment of H.R. 674
would cost approximately $80,000 a year. Do you believe that is
a sufficient level of funding for the ACMV?
Mr. Mayes. I will turn the specific response over to my
colleague.
Mr. Hall. Ms. McClenney.
Ms. McClenney. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
That covers the travel, honorarium and per diem of the
Advisory Committee Members. That is adequate.
Mr. Hall. Good. Thank you.
If the funding were increased, what else would this
Advisory Committee be able to accomplish; for instance,
providing followup reports, informing of the success rate of
the VA's implementation of those recommendations?
Mr. Mayes. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is something I have not
really thought through. Certainly increasing the funding would
allow more frequent meetings, more interaction. I think that
that is one thing that comes to mind.
Mr. Hall. Thank you.
Ms. McClenney. May I add?
Mr. Hall. Yes, please, Ms. McClenney.
Ms. McClenney. The law requires--the congressional mandates
say that our Advisory Committee is required to meet at least
twice annually. One of those meetings is a site visit, and they
generally choose an area where there is a high concentration of
minority veterans, and also depending on the needs. For
example, we chose Los Angeles because there are 500,000
minority veterans in the County of Los Angeles and
approximately 1.5 million minority veterans in the State of
California.
The other visit is to Washington, to our headquarters here,
where they actually receive briefings from the three
administrations and other key staff offices and discuss their
findings and recommendations. The VA has and does continue to
listen to those recommendations, and I think it is making an
active attempt to enact many of the recommendations the
Committee has recommended.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Ms. McClenney.
Are you aware, Mr. Mayes, or are any of your colleagues, of
the current status of reform at the Chicago VA Regional Office
(RO), for example, the number of additional employees that have
been added? Can you apprise the Subcommittee of any lingering
or ongoing problems? Is Illinois still ranked last in
disability compensation benefits?
Mr. Mayes. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to talk about
Chicago. I do not have that information at hand.
Mr. Hall. Well, if you could respond in writing, we would
appreciate that.
Mr. Mayes. Yes, sir, we can do that.
Mr. Hall. Thank you.
[The information from VA follows:]
The Chicago RO currently has 182 full-time employees (FTE) on board
in the Veterans Service Center (VSC) dedicated to the processing of
service-connected compensation claims. This represents an increase of
19 FTE since the beginning of March 2008. The additional staffing is
expected to increase station productivity in the short term, with
greater output in the future. In March 2007, the Chicago RO had a
pending inventory of 14,273 disability claims. By March 2008, this
number was reduced to 10,453, an improvement of 26.8 precent.
In FY07, the Chicago RO brokered over 8,090 claims that were ready
for a decision to other stations with the capacity to process this
additional rating work. This brokering of work has allowed the RO to
focus their attention on the oldest cases pending in their inventory.
As a result of increased staffing and brokering, the Chicago RO has
shown dramatic improvement in the average days pending (ADP) of a
claim. Chicago's ADP at the end of FY07 was 175 days; at the end of
March 2008 was 145.5 days. The Chicago RO has also shown significant
improvement in ADP for Global War on Terror (GWOT) veterans. At the
beginning of FY08, ADP for GWOT claims stood at 142.7 days, as of March
2008, ADP for GWOT claims was 97.1 days.
In addition to this increased productivity, the Chicago RO has also
shown improvement in station quality. Authorization quality at the RO
at the end of March 2007 stood at 83.3 precent and fiduciary quality
was 79.7 percent. At the end of March 2008, authorization quality was
92 percent and fiduciary quality increased to 84.8 percent.
Overall, the Chicago RO has made considerable improvement. At the
end of FY02, the station was ranked 52nd nationwide in
disability compensation benefit payments. The RO has jumped six spots
and was ranked 46th nationwide at the end of FY06. This
improvement is significant as it reflects the average payments made to
all veterans on their rolls, and not just recent decisions. Preliminary
data for FY07 indicates the positive trend continues although VA is
still in the process of validating this data.
Mr. Hall. I know you are intending to supplement your
statements today and to provide written testimony regarding
H.R. 1273 after the hearing, but could you please explain what
the current plot and marker headstone allowances are for
veterans, who qualify, and how much that normally is?
Mr. Mayes. Yes sir, I can talk about the plot allowance.
The current plot allowance is $300 for a veteran who is buried
at a non-national cemetery, and to be eligible for the plot
allowance the veteran had to have either died because of a
service-related disability, have been receiving VA pension or
compensation at the time of death, or have been entitled to
receive VA pension or comp, but decided not to reduce his or
her retirement or disability pay, or the veteran died in a VA
hospital. If the veteran died in a VA hospital, we would pay
transportation.
One other sort of exception is we would pay the plot for
any veteran who is entitled to burial in a national cemetery if
they are buried in a State cemetery.
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much.
If I could just quickly ask you about H.R. 1900 and H.R.
1901. First of all I know, once again, you are planning to
supplement testimony and provide written statements after the
hearing; but could you explain the significance of the
Expeditionary Medal to the VA, who qualifies and how it would
impact benefits, for instance?
Mr. Mayes. We are not prepared to talk about those
particular bills. The Expeditionary Medal, however, does
signify service. For example, in claims related to service in
Vietnam, as an example, if a veteran had a Vietnam
Expeditionary Medal, that would denote that they had service in
Vietnam, and that is significant in claims for disabilities
related to exposure to Agent Orange, as an example. So that is
how we would use that information that is typically on the DD-
214.
With respect to the specific bills, we just are in the
process of still formulating our views and costs on those.
Mr. Hall. We would appreciate getting that opinion in
writing as soon as we can.
Mr. Mayes. Yes, sir.
[The Administration views for H.R. 1900, and H.R. 1901
appear on p. 43.]
Mr. Hall. I wanted to ask you, regarding H.R. 2346, you
stated that the VA is currently evaluating the Memorial
Benefits Program with hopes for completion by April of 2008.
Can you give us any kind of update on where you are in that
process? What is the definitive goal of the evaluation?
Mr. Mayes. I will turn that over to my colleague Ron
Walters from the National Cemetery Administration. He can give
you a better feel.
Mr. WALTERS. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.
The study was brought about because periodic reviews of our
programs are required by the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993, and it is part of good management practice. We are
currently working with an independent contractor to conduct an
evaluation of the full array of burial benefits offered by the
VA. We awarded that contract in December of 2006, and the
contractor is currently developing survey protocols, focus
group activities and mapping requirements. The contractor is
also examining the extent of repair and maintenance that is
required at our cemeteries.
As I mentioned, the study will address the full range of VA
burial benefits and activities.
I might also add that in developing the statement of work
for the evaluation, the VA consulted with major stakeholders
such as Members of veterans service organizations, as well as
staff of the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees--at
a time that predates the arrival of current staff--regarding
their perceptions of the challenges facing VA burial benefits
in the future.
The research framework that was adopted by the contractor,
which we have seen, reflects stakeholder input and addresses
access variables that are listed in H.R. 2346. We expect to
have the final report from the contractor in the spring of
2008, and we will brief Congress and other stakeholders at that
time about findings and recommendations. We would be happy, of
course, to work with the Subcommittee to provide any
information that you might need in the interim.
Mr. Hall. Thank you.
Mr. Mayes. I would just add also that when I was preparing
for this hearing today and went back and looked at the
legislative history on many of the programs we offer to
commemorate veterans service, you know anything that we do, if
it is going to be a change, absolutely has to be done with your
assistance. So we would be working with you, as we have, when I
looked back through the legislative history, all the way back,
really, before even 1973, but certainly since.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. I appreciate that and we look forward
to working with you also.
I know regarding H.R. 1901 that you are planning to
supplement testimony with written testimony later, but could
you venture an opinion as to the idea of expanding pension
benefits to veterans who served during the named conflicts that
were not declared wars?
Mr. Mayes. Mr. Chairman, I have to reserve my comment at
this point in time since we still are formulating the views.
Mr. Hall. Okay. All right. I understand.
Going back to H.R. 674 for a moment, do you think the
authorization for the Advisory Committee for Minority Veterans
should be allowed to sunset or, if it did, what the VA would do
to replace this entity?
Mr. Mayes. Well, sir, we support the bill because we do not
want it to sunset. And if it were to sunset, I believe that the
Department of Veterans Affairs would continue to engage
minority veterans. I do not know what that engagement would
look like or how it would work, but we feel there is a benefit
in working with the Advisory Committee. So in some form or
fashion, we would be working with minority veterans.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. I suspect that the Committee will be
continued and not sunsetted, but I was just curious what your
own opinion was on that.
Lastly, I wanted to ask you, during the last visit, in 2006
to the Los Angeles VA facilities, the Advisory Committee
observed that the staff diversity was not representative of the
minority veteran population, especially with regard to higher
pay grades and for African Americans, Hispanics, and American
Indians. The ACMV noted that this appears to be a systemic
problem throughout the VA.
Could you advise us as to what the VA is doing to ensure
staff diversity for these veterans?
Mr. Mayes. Well, having been a regional office director
before taking this position, I know that in my individual
performance plan, I was required to ensure that there were
hiring practices that promoted diversity. And, in fact, I
reported it each year in my self-assessment. We tried to hire
minorities. We looked at the statistical metropolitan area. I
was in Cleveland, and our hiring practices mirrored the
community in Cleveland. I can speak to what we were doing in
the field at a regional office prior to my taking this
position, sir.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. That hopefully is the approach that
most regional directors are taking.
Once again, regarding State cemeteries, how would H.R. 2696
change the way that the grant funding is provided for
operational and maintenance costs?
Mr. Mayes. You are talking about the provision to allow
States to use grant funds for operation and maintenance costs.
Right now, they do not. We get the cemeteries set up. We
provide grants for the establishment of the cemetery, but the
States are responsible for operation and maintenance costs.
This would blur that line because it would allow grant funds to
be used for those operation and maintenance costs, and it is
not clear to us how that would occur in future outyears.
Would there be a dependency set up between a State cemetery
and Federal funding that might not be able to be perpetuated
into the future? There is some concern about this.
The other thing is that money could be used to fund
additional cemeteries, and it certainly could be used to expand
the plot program, of which the intent originally was to address
the shortage of national cemeteries when the benefit was
created. Those are some concerns that we would have.
Mr. Hall. I thank you very much. I am looking forward to
the written responses to the other questions.
Would the minority counsel like to ask questions?
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All of our questions have been covered, and we have no
further questions.
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much, sir.
We would like to thank you all for being here.
Mr. Mayes, Mr. Hipolit, Mr. Walters, and Ms. McClenney,
thank you for your patience. I look forward to your
correspondence and to seeing you again in the future.
The meeting stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of the Hon. John Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
Good Morning,
I would ask everyone to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance--flags
are located in the front and rear of the room.
I would like to thank the witnesses for taking the time to appear
today to present testimony on these important measures pending before
the Committee.
Today we will examine seven bills covering a broad spectrum of this
Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The first is H.R. 674, introduced by Congressman Gutierrez, which
would repeal the sunset of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans,
slated to occur December 31, 2009 without Congressional action. As I
stated during the Joint DAMA/Health Subcommittee hearing, I am
especially concerned about the pending expiration of this authorization
in light of a June 2007 report from the VA Health Services Research &
Development Service (HSR&D), entitled Racial and Ethnic Disparities in
the VA Healthcare System: A Systematic Review.
This report found that racial disparities exist in all clinical
arenas and that the disparities in healthcare delivery are contributing
to measurable differences in health outcomes. It also found that the
disparate treatment in the VA appears to affect African-American and
Hispanic veterans more significantly. With minorities comprising 20
percent of all of our Nation's veterans, like Mr. Gutierrez, I believe
the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans plays an essential and
indispensable role for the VA and should be made a permanent fixture.
We will also receive testimony on three bills regarding veterans'
memorial benefits, H.R. 1273, H.R. 2346, H.R. 2696, offered by Ms.
Berkley, Mr. Fossella and Mr. Lamborn, the Ranking Member,
respectively. Ms. Berkley's and Mr. Lamborn's bills, among other
things, seek to increase the plot and headstone or marker allowances
for our veterans who choose to be laid to rest in state or private
cemeteries.
Mr. Fossella's bill, H.R. 2346, is intended to improve the process
for determining where our National cemeteries are located. I know that
because of changing migration patterns and just simple geographic
configurations, the current criteria of a 170,000 veteran population in
a 75-mile radius, is not always a workable paradigm. I also am aware
that the VA is currently evaluating its memorial benefits plan and I
look forward to hearing testimony on its progress in this area--before
the April 2008 target completion date.
We will also hear from Mr. Rahall on two bills that would expand
the categories of those veterans eligible to receive pensions for non-
service-connected disability death or service. H.R. 1900 would do so by
providing this pension to veterans receiving expeditionary medals and
H.R. 1901 would do so by including those veterans who served in the
Korean peninsula, Lebanon, Panama and Grenada. I look forward to
receiving testimony on these two important measures.
Lastly, H.R. 2697, also sponsored by Mr. Lamborn, would expand the
eligibility for veterans' mortgage life insurance (VMLI) to include
Members of the Armed Forces receiving specially adaptive housing. I
know it is often difficult for these servicemembers to acquire
commercial insurance policies and this bill would close that gap
between the military and VA benefits. This change is likely more
necessary than ever for our returning OIF/OEF veterans.
Thank you.
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
Mr. Chairman, Thank you for holding this hearing in response to my
July 10 letter to you. In that letter I asked that we also hold a
legislative hearing on H.R. 3047, the Veterans Claims Processing
Innovation Act of 2007, which is developing broad bipartisan support.
H.R. 3047 will bring VA's compensation and pension system into the
21st century. By increasing accountability and leveraging technology at
the Veterans Benefits Administration, this bill would improve the
accuracy and speed of benefits claims; and I commend it to the
attention of my colleagues.
While I was disappointed that testimony on H.R. 3047 would not be
heard today, I am heartened by your promise to hold another hearing on
H.R. 3047 when Congress returns in September.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, I would look forward to you joining the
fifteen or more Members, from both sides of the aisle, already
cosponsoring H.R. 3047.
It should go without saying that I anticipate the opportunity to
review your own legislation to reduce the backlog, once it is offered.
This afternoon, we are considering several pieces of legislation,
all of which are of interest and potential value.
Two of these bills bear my name, H.R. 2696 and H.R. 2697. A third,
H.R. 2346, introduced by Mr. Fossella, directly addresses how we
determine the location of a national cemetery and is most timely.
I look forward to working with Mr. Fossella on H.R. 2346. This is
an important bill that will help provide veterans and their families
with greater access to national cemeteries, and I believe it will help
VA create an accurate and beneficial selection process.
The two bills I introduced support similar bills introduced by
Senator Craig.
H.R. 2696, the Veterans Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007,
has provisions that improve the VA burial benefit and state veterans
cemeteries. The bill would increase the burial and plot allowance for a
veteran's burial in a private cemetery from $300 to $400.
The bill would also repeal the current time limitation for state
reimbursement for interment costs by VA. From time to time, a state
locates the remains of veterans who were not interred. When states
inter these veterans, they cannot be reimbursed by VA because of the
time limit on reimbursement costs.
My legislation would repeal this limitation.
The last provision of the bill would authorize the VA secretary to
make additional grants to states for improving and expanding state
veteran cemeteries. States would have to submit an application to the
Secretary, and could receive up to $5,000,000.
H.R. 2697 would extend eligibility for Veterans Mortgage Life
Insurance (V-M-L-I) to Members of the armed forces.
VMLI is a special type of life insurance that is only available to
veterans who qualify for specially adapted housing grants. Many of our
Nation's injured active duty servicemembers will eventually qualify for
VMLI and would benefit by having this eligibility.
These are just three of the bills before us today; I look forward
to the testimony and our discussion of the other legislation before us
today.
My thanks to my colleagues and the witnesses for their testimony
and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Nick J. Rahall II,
a Representative in Congress from the State of West Virginia
Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn and Members of the
Subcommittee, I thank you for the work you have done in recent months
to honor our brave men and women in uniform. I also thank you for your
courtesy in allowing me to testify before the Subcommittee today on two
bills I have offered that would extend the benefits offered to our
Nation's veterans.
Mr. Chairman, for centuries, we have witnessed the personal courage
and sacrifice made by millions of Americans who have served our
country. They have done so proudly and without hesitation, to protect
our freedoms and our way of life, and to help ensure peace in various
regions worldwide. These individuals represent the best of America, and
I believe it is imperative that the U.S. Congress do everything in its
power to honor them when they return home from service.
Too often, when these young men and women return, we do not always
honor their bravery with the full measure of respect and gratitude that
it deserves. I believe we should take this opportunity to help ensure
that our veterans, regardless of the timeframe of their service,
receive appropriate recognition and benefits.
Under current law, veterans may only meet eligibility requirements
to draw a full pension if they have served in combat during a declared
period of war. While this method was sufficient for the majority of
veterans who served in America's 20th century engagements, America's
evolving role in conflicts abroad has necessitated the expansion and
adaptation of our veterans benefits programs, including those
pertaining to pensions.
I believe this Subcommittee would agree that the veterans who put
their lives on the line and suffer losses during undeclared times of
conflict are no less admirable or deserving of thanks than are those
who serve in declared conflicts.
My first bill, H.R. 1900, would extend eligibility for pension
benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs to veterans who
have received the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. This medal was
established in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy to recognize the
service of American veterans in light of the United States' expanding
involvement in conflicts outside the scope of a ``period of war.'' This
medal is still awarded today to those men and women who have served in
hostile regions, but not all of these courageous veterans receive full
benefits.
My second bill, H.R. 1901, would provide the guarantee of a pension
to veterans who served in Korea, Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama. The bill
specifically extends benefits to the following:
Veterans who served in Korea from February 1, 1955,
through August 4, 1964, and from May 8, 1975, through 1990.
Veterans who served in Lebanon and Grenada from August
24, 1982 through July 31, 1984.
Veterans who served in Panama from December 20, 1989,
through January 31, 1990.
This bill would benefit 27,000 veterans who facilitated the
overthrow of General Manuel Noriega in Panama, as well those who served
during the conflict in Lebanon, in 1983, where America lost 241 Marines
to a suicide attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. Though these
soldiers, and those who served during the additional conflicts covered
by this bill, were clearly at risk, they are currently not eligible to
receive veteran's pensions. Nonetheless, in these cases, danger was
faced, bravery was shown, and American lives were lost.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that these bills more closely align the
sacrifices made by these men and women with the compensation they
deserve. As President Ronald Reagan, in his remarks to the nation on
the conflict in Lebanon and Grenada stated, ``They gave their lives in
defense of our National security every bit as much as any man who ever
died fighting in a war.'' These sentiments apply to every man and woman
who has stood in harm's way for the protection of our freedom. It is
time that the U.S. Congress recognized this fact and extended pension
benefits to those veterans who have exemplified the courage and bravery
of service in our Armed Forces.
Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for affording me this courtesy,
and I look forward to working with you and the Subcommittee to
appropriately honor our veterans.
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Vito Fossella,
a Representative in Congress from the State of New York
For years, I have joined with Staten Island veterans in a battle to
establish a veteran's cemetery in the borough. The closest veteran's
cemetery in the area is the Calverton National Cemetery on Long Island,
but transportation demands have made it inaccessible for many aging
veterans. It can be a grueling 3 to 5 hour roundtrip commute, making
traveling there terribly difficult for most of the 28,000 veterans in
my district.
There are three primary obstacles preventing the establishment of a
veteran's cemetery on Staten Island. First, a New York State law passed
in the mid 1980's prohibits the state from funding a veteran's
cemetery. Currently, Staten Island's local representatives are working
on a legislative solution to fix this problem.
Second, Staten Island lacks the necessary available acreage for a
cemetery. Due to the land shortage, many local veterans have united
around the idea of a mausoleum because it requires the least amount of
land and is the most cost-effective way to achieve their long-sought
goal.
Third, the Department of Veterans Affairs requires a threshold of
170,000 veterans within a 75 mile area to necessitate the establishment
of a national veterans cemetery. Due to the Calverton National Cemetery
on Long Island, Staten Island falls within a 75 mile radius and
therefore is ineligible. For an aging, often disabled veteran
population, the 3 to 5 hour commute to Long Island is unreasonable, and
simply does not properly serve the veteran population, nor their
families, on Staten Island. In addition to the 75 mile rule, the VA
generally requires at least 175 acres to be available for a national
cemetery. Currently, the existing land on Staten Island that has been
offered by Mount Loretto is only 50 acres. But as I mentioned earlier,
many local veterans have come to agree to the idea of a mausoleum
instead of an actual cemetery.
I believe that the threshold requirements used by the VA are a
blunt instrument when applied to determining cemetery eligibility. To
refine the process I authored HR 2346, a bill which would improve the
process by adding additional variables for the VA to consider when
citing a national cemetery.
HR 2346 will direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish
a process for determining whether a geographic area is sufficiently
served by the veteran's cemeteries located there. The process will take
into account the following variables for each geographic area: (1)
total number of veterans; (2) average distance a resident must travel
to reach the nearest national cemetery; (3) population density; (4)
average amount of time it takes a resident to travel to the nearest
national cemetery; (5) availability of public transportation for
purposes of traveling to national cemeteries; and (6) average amount of
fees charged to an individual traveling on the major roads leading to
the national cemeteries
Finally, In the case of a geographic area in which sufficient land
is not available for the establishment of a cemetery, the Secretary
shall consider alternatives such as establishing a mausoleum.
It is worth noting that the VA is currently conducting a study
regarding its requirements for establishing national veterans'
cemeteries. A focus of the study is an examination of whether current
thresholds are feasible and not overly simplistic in ensuring veteran
access. VA knows there is a problem, and I hope my legislation can help
fix it.
In closing, Staten Island has one of the highest veterans
populations in the state yet it remains unserved by a veterans
cemetery. It is my hope that if adopted, my legislation would provide
for a place of remembrance for so many of my constituents who deserve
such a site closer to home.
Prepared Statement of Carl Blake, National Legislative Director,
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on H.R. 674; H.R. 1273; H.R. 1900; H.R.
1901; H.R. 2346; H.R. 2696, the ``Veterans Dignified Burial Assistance
Act of 2007;'' and H.R. 2697. PVA appreciates the efforts of the
Subcommittee to address these issues that will benefit today's veterans
and the veterans of tomorrow.
H.R. 674
PVA supports H.R. 674, a bill that will repeal the provision of law
requiring termination of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans as
of December 31, 2009. This Committee was established by Public Law 103-
446 on November 2, 1994. The Committee has provided advice to the
Secretary and to Congress on the VA's administration of benefits,
healthcare, and other services to minority veterans since that time.
They have met with veterans' service organizations and conducted
townhall meetings to provide information and address the concerns of
minority veterans. PVA believes that it is a beneficial working group
and that it should be retained.
H.R. 1273
H.R. 1273 will amend Title 38, United States Code, to direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to restore plot allowance eligibility for
veterans of any war, and restore the headstone or marker allowance for
eligible veterans. Previously, Congress passed legislation to help pay
for the burial plot and the headstone for a veterans buried in a non-
government cemetery. This was intended to take some of the burial
workload off of the National Cemetery Administration and allow a
veteran to be buried in a family plot with other family members or in
their particular religious burial site.
In 1981, Congress eliminated the burial allowance for veterans with
non-service connected disabilities. In 1990, Congress passed additional
legislation eliminating the grave marker allowance. PVA supports this
legislation that will restore both benefits to eligible veterans.
H.R. 1900
H.R. 1900 will extend eligibility for pension benefits from the VA
to veterans who received an expeditionary medal during a period of
military service other than a period of war. Expeditionary medals were
awarded to the servicemember who participated in, or was in direct
support of, one of the many operations of the U.S. military. Operations
such as the invasion of Grenada in 1983 or the invasion of Panama in
1989 and many other special operations were periods of high tension
within our military and involved performance of duties that sometimes
resulted in serious injury or loss of life. These operations were not a
declared period of war or the result of a presidential proclamation.
PVA supports the extension of benefits as defined in H.R. 1900.
However, we would like to see these pension benefits extended to
all active military that served during those periods, not just those
individuals who served in the specific theater. The expeditionary medal
was awarded to participants of a military operation, but all military
personnel may have been called upon to serve during these critical
periods. We feel that all members of the military serving during one of
those periods should receive this pension if they meet the other
qualifications of this benefit.
H.R. 1901
PVA supports H.R. 1901 that will extend eligibility for pension
benefits for veterans that served in the military during specified
periods of military engagement. PVA believes that the restriction for
eligibility in H.R. 1901 defined by the phrase ``service performed in''
should be removed from the legislation so that all servicemembers that
served during that time period would be included. As in H.R. 1900, any
active military personnel may have been called upon to serve in the
Nation's combat effort. We believe that anyone that served during that
period should qualify.
H.R. 2346
PVA supports H.R. 2346. This legislation directs the Secretary to
establish a process to determine whether or not a geographic area is
sufficiently served by a national cemetery. As the VA plans the
expansion of the cemetery system they must ensure that areas that may
have been overlooked in that past, or have seen a substantial increase
in the population, will be served by a VA cemetery. This projection of
future need can also provide helpful information to the states as they
decide whether or not to participate in the VA's cemetery program.
H.R. 2696, the ``Veterans Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007''
PVA supports H.R. 2696, the ``Veterans Dignified Burial Assistance
Act of 2007.'' This bill contains three important components. First,
the bill increases the plot or interment allowance from $300 to $400.
This will be a welcome benefit for the family Members of deceased
veterans. The amount was last increased to $300 with the passage of
Public Law 107-103 enacted in 2001.
Secondly, PVA approves of the provision to repeal the time limit
that states have to file for reimbursement for interment costs. This
provision seems to serve no other purpose than to potentially save the
VA money. Last, PVA supports the provision for grants for operation and
maintenance of state veterans' cemeteries. This program will enhance
the ability of states to provide veterans a local burial site in areas
where a national cemetery may be many hours away. It will also provide
for more burial capacity to the national cemetery system which has
closed cemeteries for new burials in some locations.
H.R. 2697
PVA supports H.R. 2697. This legislation will compliment
legislation enacted during the 109th Congress. At that time,
the Specially Adapted Housing Grant was made available to
servicemembers that were severely injured and still in the military so
that they might begin taking steps to modify their homes even before
being discharged. This legislation will allow servicemembers awaiting
discharge to be eligible for mortgage life insurance. This provision is
perfectly reasonable as these men and women will be eligible for the
benefit once they are a veteran anyway.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, PVA would once again
like to thank you for the opportunity to provide our views on this
important legislation. We look forward to working with you to continue
to improve the benefits and services available to veterans.
Thank you again. I would be happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
Prepared Statement of Eric A. Hilleman, Deputy Director, National
Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee:
Thank you for allowing the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S.
(VFW) to present our views on the legislation pending before this
Subcommittee.
H.R 674: This bill would repeal the scheduled sunset date of December
31, 2009 for the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans.
We support this legislation. The Advisory Committee on Minority
Veterans conducts site visits and meetings with VA officials,
formulating opinions and recommendations, which serve minority
veterans. Their input helps to improve access to care and further
enhances VA's service provided to minority veterans. The VFW strongly
supports its reauthorization.
H.R. 1273, Restoration of Plot Allowance Eligibility for Veterans
We support S. 1273. This bill would make the $300 plot allowance
available to service-connected disabled veterans or period-of-war
veterans. It also grants the authority to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to reimburse the deceased veteran's family for a non-government
headstone or marker in lieu of furnishing a Government marker. Current
law does not allow for the reimbursement of private markers in lieu of
a Government-furnished marker.
VFW has long supported legislation that will increase the burial
plot allowance, as recent increases have not keep pace with the cost of
final burial arrangements for those who honorably served our Nation. As
co-author of the Independent Budget (IB), we have strongly advocated
increasing the burial plot allowance. We would like to see the amount
closer to the IB recommendation of $745, which would cover more of the
costs associated with opening the grave.
H.R. 1900: Extends the eligibility for veterans' pension benefits to
veterans who receive an expeditionary medal for a period of
military service other than a period of war.
The VFW fully supports the addition of this language to Chapter 15,
U.S.C. Title 38. This bill would add to the definition of what entitles
a veteran to pension for non-service-connected disability, death and/or
for service. It would expand eligibility from veterans serving in a
defined ``period of war'' to all veterans with an expeditionary service
medal.
This change in the law would keep pace with the changing nature of
use of the military force and warfare in past conflicts and military
actions such as our Nation's military involvement in Somalia from 1992
to 1993, Bosnia from 1992 to 2002, and current operations in the Horn
of Africa from 2002 to present. Under current law, these servicemembers
and their families do not receive benefits that aid families during
great periods of stress.
H.R. 1901: A bill to extend eligibility for pension benefits under laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to veterans
who served during certain periods in specified locations.
The VFW supports this legislation to extend pension benefits to
servicemembers that have risked life and limb in the Korean peninsula,
Lebanon, and Granada. These groups of veterans are ineligible for
pension benefits available to veterans that served during dates
prescribed by Presidential proclamation or concurrent resolution of the
Congress. We urge passage of this legislation and ask that the Congress
consider other groups of veterans that have served at considerable risk
to life and limb, such as service in Somalia in 1992 to 1993 and U.S.
military operations in the Balkans from the nineties to present.
H.R. 2346 would direct the VA Secretary to establish a process for
determining whether a geographic area is sufficiently served by
the national cemeteries located in that geographic area.
The work envisioned under H.R. 2346 is already being accomplished
by the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) under P.L. 106-117 and
P.L. 108-109. The NCA is required to report annually to Congress on the
establishment of additional national cemeteries. A strategic plan is
formulated, surveying areas determined to be appropriate for new
national cemeteries. The site selection process takes into account
population centers and the travel distance between area cemeteries,
weighs the views of state and local veterans' organizations, and
solicits others the Secretary considers knowledgeable in these matters.
We believe that the current process sufficiently addresses the needs of
veterans and their families; and as such, we view this legislation as
duplicative of efforts already properly performed by the National
Cemetery Administration.
H.R. 2696, Veterans' Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007
VFW supports HR 2696. Current law allows a veteran who is not
buried in a national cemetery, a plot allowance of up to $300. H.R.
2696 increases the plot allowance to $400. VFW has long supported
legislation that will provide an increase in the burial plot allowance,
as recent increases have not kept pace with the cost of purchasing a
final resting place for those who have honorably served our Nation. As
co-author of the Independent Budget (IB), we have strongly advocated
increasing the burial plot allowance. We believe moving the amount
closer to the IB recommendation of $745 would better serve veterans and
their families to settle the affairs of a departed loved one.
This legislation also includes a provision to abolish grant-filing
deadlines for Veterans State Cemeteries. The VFW has no position on
this provision.
H.R. 2697: VFW supports HR 2697, legislation to expand eligibility for
veterans' mortgage life insurance (VMLI) to include Members of
the Armed Forces receiving specially adapted housing assistance
from VA.
Current law allows those medically retired servicemembers to
receive VA specially adapted housing benefits before leaving service
but does not provide the same eligibility under the VA insurance
program. This legislation closes that gap and allows those who may have
difficulty getting commercial insurance the opportunity to receive
reasonable coverage under VMLI.
Prepared Statement of Robert M. Fells, External Chief Operating Officer
and General Counsel, International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral
Association
Chairman Hall and Members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate your invitation to testify today regarding H.R. 1273
and related bills to improve and enhance veterans' burial benefits. The
International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association represents
over 7,200 Members including non-profit, for-profit, religious and
municipal cemeteries, as well as funeral homes, crematories and related
businesses primarily in the United States and in 24 foreign countries.
Founded in 1887, the ICCFA promotes open competition, consumer choices,
and prearrangement. I have served the Association since 1983 as general
counsel, and also as External Chief Operating Officer since 2001.
The ICCFA applauds the efforts of Congresswoman Shelley Berkley and
appreciates her leadership in sponsoring H.R 1273, a bill to restore
the veterans plot allowance eligibility and the headstone/marker
allowance for use in private and religious cemeteries. These two cost-
effective burial benefits were popular for many years with veterans and
their families who preferred interment in non-government cemeteries for
personal, ethnic or religious reasons. In 1990, Congress suddenly
curtailed the eligibility of wartime veterans to receive the plot
allowance unless they were receiving VA compensation, pension benefits,
or died of service-connected injuries. At the same time, Congress
abolished the marker allowance that provided a cash reimbursement,
based on the Government's wholesale costs of furnishing markers, to
veterans and their families who preferred to purchase their own marker
or headstone for placement in a private cemetery.
When the VA's National Cemetery Administration was formally
organized in 1973 as the result of Public Law 93-43, Congress
implicitly acknowledged that national cemeteries did not operate in a
vacuum, but complemented other forms of burial that used resources in
private, religious, and municipal cemeteries. The ICCFA was
instrumental in having included in that law a provision that authorized
a plot allowance (then $150) to benefit the majority of veterans and
their families who preferred interment in non-government cemeteries.
This plot allowance was also viewed as a means to offset demands on
national cemeteries and as a recognition of the personal, religious,
and ethnic preferences of veterans. Subsequent legislation established
additional forms of burial assistance, such as the marker allowance, to
further avoid a forced reliance on national cemeteries.
Since the November 1990 repeal of the marker allowance and the
curtailment of the plot allowance, we believe that the VA eligibility
requirements to receive forms of burial benefits has been inconsistent.
The general availability of national cemetery interment to virtually
all veterans and their immediate families contrasts sharply with the
restricted benefits for veterans who wish to be buried in private
cemeteries. In that sense, Congress has legislated against wartime
veterans by cutting burial benefits to this group. The ICCFA has
estimated that as many as 70 percent of the veterans previously
entitled to burial benefits in non-government cemeteries were made
ineligible through Congressional actions in 1990 and earlier.
For example, in October, 1981, P.L. 97-35 was enacted that
disqualified wartime veterans from receiving the non-service connected
basic burial allowance (then $300) in the absence of additional
criteria. In November 1990, as mentioned above, Congress again
discriminated against wartime veterans by restricting the plot
allowance and eliminating the marker allowance. These modest, one-time
payments not only reflected the wishes of veterans but would also
result in long-term cost savings when compared to expense of
maintaining graves in the national cemeteries in perpetuity. However,
we feel that these factors were not given sufficient regard at the
time.
Hence, the importance of H.R 1273, a bill that does not create new
burial benefits, but restores the veterans plot allowance eligibility
and the headstone/marker allowance for use in private and religious
cemeteries, benefits which never should have been eliminated.
In conclusion, we appreciate your allowing us to testify today and
we urge you to act favorably on H.R. 1273. I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Raymond C. Kelley, Legislative Director, American
Veterans (AMVETS)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for providing AMVETS (American Veterans) the opportunity
to testify regarding pending legislation on minority veterans, memorial
affairs, and disability pension benefits.
Over the past twelve years, the Advisory Committee on Minority
Veterans with their unique insight has provided timely, accurate
information and recommendations on potential barriers, which are
unintentionally in place, often causing minority veterans a lower
quality of care. Although, these barriers are not limited to
minorities, the advisory committee's perspective provides an ability to
identify the root of the problem and submit recommendations which often
develop into legislative proposals and inevitably helps all veterans.
AMVETS wholly supports H.R. 674's repeal of its sunset provision,
extending the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans.
Mr. Chairman, it should be at the root of our Nation's conscience
to honor those servicemembers who are willing to stand in harm's way at
our Government's request, and the highest respect we can pay is to
honor the lives of our veterans after they have passed away. H.R. 1273,
H.R. 2696, and H.R. 2346 promote this honor as well as offset the cost
incurred by the families when a loved one passes on. AMVETS supports
H.R. 1273 in restoring veterans' plot allowance eligibility and
headstone or marker allowance, but would encourage an amendment to
include all eligible veterans, not just veterans who have served during
wartime. AMVETS also supports the increase in burial assistance from
$300 to $400; however, Mr. Chairman, the amount should be increased to
$745. This increased amount would make current payments proportionally
equal to the amount paid when this benefit was initially provided in
1973. AMVETS wholly supports H.R. 2346 as it assists VA in meeting its
goal of providing 85 percent of veterans with burial options within 75
miles of their residence.
AMVETS supports H.R. 1900 and H.R. 1901 as they update and clarify
veterans who are eligible for pension benefits. In the same light, Mr.
Chairman, AMVETS supports H.R. 2697; however, due to Title 38's
definition of ``veteran,'' if H.R. 1315 is not passed, administrative
amendments may need to be enacted to include ``members of the Armed
Forces'' throughout Chapter 21, Title 38, to clarify servicemembers'
eligibility for adaptive housing assistance which this resolution will
insure.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
Prepared Statement of Alec S. Petkoff, Assistant Director, Veterans
Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, American Legion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion's
views on the issues being considered by the Subcommittee today. The
American Legion commends the Subcommittee for holding a hearing to
discuss these important topics.
H.R. 674
To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the provision of law
requiring termination of the Advisory Committee on Minority
Veterans as of December 31, 2009.
H.R. 674 seeks to repeal the provision of law requiring termination
of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans (ACMV) by December 31,
2009. The American Legion supports the repeal of the sunset provision
for the ACMV.
ACMV was created to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the
administration of The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits and
services for minority veterans. The Advisory Committee is responsible
for reviewing reports and studies on compensation, health care,
rehabilitation, outreach and other VA services. It also assesses the
needs of minority veterans and makes recommendations to improve
programs established to meet the identified needs. As VA continues to
enhance and create new programs to better serve the needs of minority
veterans, the need for the Advisory Committee will always remain
relevant.
Given the growing diversity of the veteran population, to include
an increasing number of women veterans, ACMV has a profound role in
ensuring that existing and future VA programs are sensitive to the
needs of this diverse population and ensuring that VA is effective in
its outreach efforts to make minority veterans aware of the benefits
and services available to them.
H.R. 1273
To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to restore plot allowance eligibility for
veterans of any war and to restore the headstone or marker
allowance for eligible persons.
H.R. 1273 seeks to restore plot allowance eligibility and to
restore the headstone or marker allowance to reflect the criteria used
before The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1990 (OBRA). OBRA limited
the payment of a burial plot allowance only to veterans who are
indigent or who are in receipt of VA disability compensation or
pension. It also eliminated the headstone or marker allowance.
The American Legion fully supports this legislation that would
restore these benefits. The American Legion saw these cuts in benefits
as a shameless cost saving measure that never should have happened.
H.R. 1900
To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for
pension benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to veterans who received an expeditionary
medal during a period of military service other than a period
of war.
This bill, if enacted, would amend title 38, United States Code, to
extend eligibility for pension benefits to veterans who received an
expeditionary medal during a period of military service other than a
period of war.
The American Legion does not have a position regarding this bill.
H.R. 1901
To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for
pension benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to veterans who served during certain periods
of time in specified locations.
This bill, if enacted, would amend title 38, United States Code, to
extend eligibility for pension benefits to veterans who served during
certain periods of time in specified locations. Specifically, this bill
would extend eligibility for non service-connected pension to those
with active duty military, naval or air service in the Republic of
Korea during the period of February 1, 1955 to August 4, 1964; in the
Republic of Korea during the period of May 8, 1975 to August 1, 1990;
in Lebanon or Grenada during the period of August 24, 1982 to July 31,
1984; in Panama during the period of December 20, 1989 to January 31,
1990.
The American Legion supports the intent of this legislation but
strongly recommends extending pension eligibility to those who served
during the aforementioned periods regardless of the location of such
service. The wartime service periods currently recognized do not (with
the exception of Vietnam for the period of February 28, 1961 to August
4, 1964) have such service location requirements. The inclusion of such
requirements is overly restrictive and contrary to the spirit and
intent of the non service-connected pension benefit.
H.R. 2346
To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a process for
determining whether a geographic area is sufficiently served by
the national cemeteries located in that geographic area.
The American Legion fully supports the intent of this legislation.
The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) has a long tradition of
providing burial and memorial services to veterans. The American Legion
supported P.L. 108-109, the National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003,
authorizing The Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) to establish new
national cemeteries to serve veterans in the areas of: Bakersfield,
California; Birmingham, Alabama; Jacksonville, Florida; Sarasota
County, Florida; southeastern Pennsylvania; and Columbia-Greenville,
South Carolina. All six areas have veteran populations exceeding
170,000, which is the threshold VA has established for new national
cemeteries.
The American Legion supports the establishment of additional
national and state veterans cemeteries and columbaria wherever a need
for them is apparent and have petitioned Congress to provide required
operations and construction funding to ensure VA burial in a national
or state veterans cemetery is a realistic option for veterans and their
eligible dependents.
The American Legion does have some concern about section 1(b)
Consideration of Alternatives. While we fully support innovative ways
to provide burial space in areas where space is limited (islands, i.e.
Puerto Rico) or where the environment is prohibitive to the traditional
constructive designs for national cemeteries (deserts, i.e. southwest
U.S.) we are concerned about the introduction of VA mausoleums. Our
concern is that the veterans of an area being considered for a
mausoleum be consulted first as to the fittingness of a mausoleum as a
final resting place. A mausoleum would have to conform to the high
standard of being a national shrine and of being a place that veterans
want to be laid to rest in.
H.R. 2696
``Veterans Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007''
The American Legion supports the intent of section 2(a) to increase
the burial plot allowance. Under the National Cemeteries Act (P.L. 95-
73) 13 percent of the cost of a burial plot was covered. The current
allowance of $300 covers on average 3 percent of costs. The American
Legion suggests it be raised to $670 to bring the amount closer to the
original 13 percent and that that amount be adjusted yearly for
inflation by tying the increased allowances to the Consumer Price
Index.
The American Legion also supports the intent of section 2(b) that
would repeal the time limitation for filing for reimbursement.
The American Legion does not have a position on grants related to
operating and maintaining a state veterans cemetery.
H.R. 2697
Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance Eligibility Expansion
H.R. 2697 addresses the expansion of Veterans Mortgage Life
Insurance (VMLI), a VA program offering $90,000 of mortgage life
insurance to severely disabled veterans who are awarded grants by the
VA for specially adapted housing, to include Members of the military
service departments who meet similar disability requirements, yet who
are still in an active duty status either due to a lengthy separation
process for various reasons, or who are retained in such status due to
their occupational specialties being needed by their service department
or due to other manpower requirements.
The American Legion supports this proposal as these individuals
obviously meet the same criteria as is used for those presently insured
under the VMLI program. The only difference here is that this group is
not yet separated from service, which is a requirement of the current
statute. We believe the justification here is, in essence, the same and
that these individuals should also have the option of being insured
under the VMLI program.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to present The American
Legion's views on these important issues.
Prepared Statement of Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation and
Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on a number of bills of great interest to
veterans. We will address today only those bills for which the
administration was able to coordinate its views in the time provided.
We will address the remaining bills in a subsequent letter to the
Subcommittee.
H.R. 674
H.R. 674 would repeal the current statutory requirement terminating
the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans (ACMV) as of December 31,
2009. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) supports H.R. 674.
The ACMV is composed of veterans of all ranks and services
appointed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Members represent the
five minority groups the Center for Minority Veterans is mandated to
oversee. It advises the Secretary and Congress on VA's administration
of benefits and provision of healthcareto minority veterans, assesses
the needs of minority veterans, reviews VA programs and activities
designed to meet those needs, and develops recommendations to address
unmet needs. Among other things, the ACMV meets with senior officials
to discuss services and programs available for minority veterans and
receives briefings from all of the administrations and other staff
offices.
The ACMV's reports and recommendations have highlighted many of the
challenges confronting minority veterans, such as access to care,
disparities in healthcarefor diseases that disproportionately affect
minorities, homelessness, unemployment, lack of understanding of claims
process, existence of limited medical research, and statistical data
related to minority veterans. VA has accepted many of the ACMV's
recommendations and is moving forward to implement them. For example,
VA is continually improving access to care by increasing the number of
ambulatory care and outpatient clinics. In 1995, there were 102 such
clinics; currently, there are 872. VA is also addressing homelessness
by partnering with community stakeholders and expanding VA's Grant and
Per Diem Program. In short, the ACMV plays a vital role in helping VA
assess and respond to the needs of minority veterans, and its efforts
complement VA's related outreach efforts.
The cost associated with enactment of H.R. 674 would be
insignificant, approximately $80,000 per year.
H.R. 2346
H.R. 2346 would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop
a process for determining whether a geographic area is sufficiently
served by the national cemeteries located in that geographic area. H.R.
2346 would require that the process take into account the: (1) number
of veterans living in the geographic area; (2) average distance a
resident of the geographic area must travel to reach the nearest
national cemetery; (3) population density of the geographic area; (4)
average amount of time it takes a resident of the geographic area to
travel to the nearest national cemetery; (5) availability of public
transportation for purposes of traveling to national cemeteries located
in the geographic area; and (6) average amount of any fees charged to
an individual traveling on the major roads leading to the national
cemeteries located in the geographic area. If land sufficient to
establish a national cemetery is not available to VA in a geographic
area, VA would be required to consider alternatives to establishing a
cemetery, including establishing a mausoleum.
VA currently seeks to ensure that a national cemetery is located
within a 75-mile radius of a deceased veteran's residence. One of the
criteria for selecting the site of a new national cemetery is a veteran
population of 170,000 that is not served by a national cemetery or
state veterans' cemetery. The six new national cemeteries authorized by
the National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003, as well as the six
cemeteries authorized by the Veterans Millennium healthcareand Benefits
Act, which was enacted in 1999, satisfy these criteria. VA is currently
evaluating VA's memorial benefits program. We expect to complete this
program evaluation by April 2008. We believe it would be prudent to
consider the results of this program evaluation before developing the
new process H.R. 2346 would require. Therefore, we oppose H.R. 2346
because the measures outlined in the bill are premature at this time.
Because we cannot know the full extent of the process that H.R.
2346 would mandate until the process is developed, we are unable to
estimate the costs that would result from enactment of the bill.
H.R. 2696
Section 2(a) of H.R. 2696, the ``Veterans' Dignified Burial
Assistance Act of 2007,'' would increase from $300 to $400 the amount
of reimbursement allowed for the costs of a burial plot or interment
for a veteran who is eligible for burial in a VA national cemetery but
is buried in a state or private cemetery. This plot or interment
allowance was last increased from $150 to $300 by Public Law 107-103 in
2001. section 2(b) of the bill would nullify the 2-year time limitation
in 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1604(d)(2) for states to file claims for the plot
or interment allowance as it applied to claims in connection with
interment of a deceased veteran's unclaimed remains. Section 2(b) would
be retroactively effective as of October 1, 2006.
As explained above, VA is currently evaluating its memorial
benefits program. That evaluation will assess the appropriateness of
VA's current burial benefits based on the data obtained and beneficiary
needs. We believe that it would be premature to take a position on
section 2 of the bill before we have completed our memorial benefits
program evaluation. Accordingly, we defer taking a position on these
provisions until we have had an opportunity to review the results of
this program evaluation.
Enactment of section 2(a) would result in costs of $7.2 million for
the first year and $77 million over 10 years. Enactment of section 2(b)
would result in insignificant costs.
Section 2(c) of the bill would authorize VA to provide up to $5
million annually in grants to states or tribal organizations for
operating and maintaining state veterans' cemeteries or veterans'
cemeteries on trust land owned by, or held in trust for, tribal
organizations. It would also require VA, not later than 180 days after
enactment, to prescribe regulations to carry out the amendments. VA
does not support using the State Cemetery Grant Program to operate and
maintain state veterans' cemeteries or tribal organization cemeteries.
(For convenience, we refer below only to grants to states and state
veterans' cemeteries, but our rationale applies also to grants to
tribal organizations and their veterans' cemeteries.)
The State Cemetery Grant Program is intended to complement the
national cemetery system in providing a dignified burial place
reasonably close to where veterans live. Through the grant program,
states establish, expand, or improve cemeteries in areas where there
are no plans to create an open national cemetery. Under current law, VA
may fund 100 percent of certain costs related to the establishment,
expansion, or improvement of a state veterans' cemetery.
Historically, states have been solely responsible for all
operational and maintenance activities at state veterans' cemeteries.
Federal grants to operate and maintain state veterans' cemeteries may
create ambiguities in the states' responsibility for the operation and
maintenance of state cemeteries. Also, because operating costs are
recurring, it is unclear upon what basis the grants would be awarded or
how the grants would be distributed. Funds obligated for this new
purpose could otherwise be used for state cemetery grants in the
existing program or to help fund operation and maintenance costs for VA
national cemeteries. Authorizing Federal grants to fund operation and
maintenance could discourage states that have already received grants
from fulfilling their commitments to operate and maintain their
cemeteries, or could encourage future grant applicants to inadequately
plan for funding the operation and maintenance of their cemeteries
because of the availability of Federal grants to cover those costs.
Enactment of section 2(c) of this bill would result in costs of $5
million for the first year and $50 million over 10 years.
H.R. 2697
Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance (VMLI) is available to severely
disabled veterans who receive a specially adapted housing grant.
Congress recently extended eligibility for specially adapted housing
assistance to Members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty who
have certain service-connected disabilities. H.R. 2697 would extend the
protection offered by VMLI to Members of the Armed Forces receiving
specially adapted housing assistance from VA. VA supports this bill.
VA estimates that 30 servicemembers would be eligible for VMLI if
H.R. 2697 were enacted. If all 30 servicemembers applied for VMLI, VA
estimates that enactment of H.R. 2697 would result in total additional
benefit costs of approximately $28,000 for the first year and $1.7
million over 10 years. Additional administrative costs would be
minimal.
Statement of Brian Lawrence, Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to submit for the record, the views of the Disabled
American Veterans (DAV) on the various bills under consideration today.
In accordance with its congressional charter, the DAV legislative
mission is focused on benefits and services provided to veterans on
account of their service-connected disabilities. We are therefore
pleased to support the bills insofar as they fall within that scope.
The DAV has no mandate from its Membership on issues addressed within
H.R. 674, H.R. 1273, H.R. 1900, H.R. 1901, and H.R. 2346, but we have
no objection to their favorable consideration.
H.R. 2696
The Veterans' Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007 would
increase plot or interment allowance from $300 to $400, for veterans
interred in cemeteries other than national cemeteries. Overall, H.R.
2696 is beneficial as it helps to ensure, as its title implies, that
veterans have access to a dignified burial that provides the level of
honor they deserve. However, a concern arises regarding the provision
that allows VA to make grants to States for the operation and
maintenance of State veterans' cemeteries. While this provision appears
favorable because it would make more burial space available for
veterans, the DAV wants to ensure that it would not have the unintended
consequence of creating competition between State and National cemetery
programs for funding. Should such certainty be made, we would welcome
the provision. Last, along with the proposed increase for the burial
plot allowance, the DAV would encourage the Committee to consider
legislation to provide for automatic annual adjustments to the burial
plot allowance indexed to the rise in the cost of living. During the
most recent DAV National Convention, our Members voted to again adopt a
long standing resolution calling for an increase for burial allowance,
which seems worthy of mention considering the objective of this
commendable legislation. This bill is consistent with the
recommendation of the The Independent Budget (IB) on this issue. The IB
is a budget and policy document that sets forth the collective views of
the DAV, AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), and the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW).
H.R. 2697
This legislation would expand eligibility for veterans' mortgage
life insurance to include Members of the Armed Forces receiving
specially adapted housing assistance from the VA. Because this bill
would provide additional coverage for severely disabled veterans who
have sacrificed so much on behalf of the security of their fellow
citizens, the DAV supports this commendable legislation.
We appreciate the Committee's interest in these issues, and we
appreciate the opportunity to present the DAV's views, which we hope
will be helpful.
Statement of the Hon. Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois
Good afternoon, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn and members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to be here today to
discuss my bill, H.R. 674, legislation to make the Advisory Committee
on Minority Veterans permanent. I have sponsored this legislation along
Congresswoman Corrine Brown, who serves on this Committee. As most of
you know, current law mandates the termination of the Advisory
Committee on Minority Veterans (ACMV) on December 31, 2009. This bill
would simply repeal the provision of law that sunsets this important
Committee so that its critical work on behalf of minority veterans can
continue.
The Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans operates in conjunction
with the VA Center for Minority Veterans. This Committee consists of
Members appointed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and includes
minority veterans, representatives of minority veterans groups and
individuals who are recognized authorities in fields pertinent to the
needs of minority veterans.
The Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans helps the VA Center for
Minority Veterans by advising the Secretary on the adoption and
implementation of policies and programs affecting minority veterans,
and by making recommendations to the VA for the establishment or
improvement of programs in the department for which minority veterans
are eligible.
The Committee has consistently provided the VA and Congress with
balanced, forward-looking recommendations, many of which go far beyond
the unique needs of minority veterans. In 2002, the Committee met in my
hometown of Chicago and warned that in the Chicago regional office ``it
was mentioned that it was much easier to deny benefits than to grant
benefits because of stringent requirements of VBA and Court of Appeal
for Veterans Claims.''
The Chicago Sun-Times later exposed that Illinois veterans ranked
50th in disability benefit compensation. That information sparked a
campaign by the Illinois Congressional Delegation to rectify the
situation. Since then, the VA Inspector General has issued his report
and recommendations and the Secretary has pledged additional staff and
resources to the Chicago regional office.
The Committee will also be needed in the future since the unique
concerns of minority veterans will become increasingly important for
our Nation over the next decade.
Currently, 17 percent of the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan
are African-American, while 11 percent are Hispanic. The concerns of
these veterans and others will not disappear on December 31, 2009, nor
should the Committee that represents them. The Advisory Committee on
Minority Veterans has helped our minority veterans from past wars with
programs to address their concerns. We should not shortchange our newly
returning soldiers by allowing this Committee's tenure to expire.
Many specific issues of concern to minority veterans need to be
addressed further. Minority veterans confront the debilitating effects
of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance abuse in greater
numbers. Minority veterans suffer from a higher incidence of
homelessness. Access to healthcare for Native American veterans is also
a common problem. In addition, access to adequate job training is a
difficulty for many minority veterans, a high percentage of whom
qualify as low-income, category A veterans.
Unfortunately, discrimination and cultural insensitivity remain
problematic for minority veterans at many VA facilities. The Advisory
Committee on Minority Veterans still has a lot of work to do, and I
urge my colleagues to support this legislation to make this important
Committee permanent.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Washington, DC.
July 7, 2008
Hon. Bob Filner
Chairman
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am pleased to provide the Committee with the views of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on four bills: H.R. 156, H.R. 1273,
H.R. 1900, and H.R. 1901, 110th Cong. We presented a summary of H.R.
156 to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
during a hearing held on June 19, 2007, but did not present VA's views
at that time. VA's statement to the Subcommittee for a hearing held on
July 31, 2007, did not cover H.R. 1273, H.R. 1900, or H.R. 1901, which
were on the agenda for that hearing. We are providing our views on
these bills at this time. For the reasons explained below, we support
enactment of H.R. 156, contingent on Congress identifying offsets, but
do not support enactment of H.R. 1273, H.R. 1900, or H.R. 1901.
H.R. 156
H.R. 156 would provide dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC)
to the survivors of certain totally disabled former prisoners of war
(POWs) who died on or before September 30, 1999.
VA supports enactment of H.R. 156, subject to Congress finding
offsets for the increased costs. Currently, DIC is payable to the
survivors of former POWs who were rated totally disabled for at least 1
year immediately preceding death, but only if death occurred after
September 30, 1999. The proposed amendment would remove the date-of-
death temporal restriction and would authorize payment of DIC to the
survivors of former POWs who died on or before September 30, 1999,
subject to the same eligibility conditions that apply to payment of DIC
to the survivors of former POWs who die after that date. We see no
basis for distinguishing survivors of former POWs who died after
September 30, 1999, from survivors of former POWs who died on or before
that date.
We estimate that the benefit costs would be $21.0 million for the
first year, $89.1 million over 5 years, and $137.4 million over 10
years. There would be no significant administrative costs associated
with enactment of the bill.
H.R. 1273
Section 1(a) of H.R. 1273 would expand eligibility for the $300
plot allowance to any wartime veteran who is buried in a private
cemetery.
VA does not support enactment of section 1(a) of H.R. 1273.
Currently, 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2303(b)(1) authorizes a plot allowance for
any veteran who is eligible for burial in a national cemetery but is
buried in a state veterans cemetery. Section 2303(b)(2) currently
authorizes a plot allowance for any veteran who is eligible for burial
in a national cemetery but is buried in a private cemetery and (1) was
in receipt of compensation or pension at the time of death, (2) was
either a wartime veteran or discharged from active service for a
service-connected disability, and whose body was unclaimed, (3) was
discharged from active service for a disability incurred or aggravated
in line of duty, or (4) died in a VA facility, as described under
section 2303(a)(2). Although section 1(a) of H.R. 1273 would extend
eligibility of the plot allowance to wartime veterans buried in a
private cemetery, the bill would also, seemingly inadvertently, remove
eligibility for the plot allowance for peacetime veterans buried in a
state cemetery who were not discharged from service due to a disability
incurred in service.
We do not support this provision of the bill because it would add
approximately 400,000 claims each year to those currently received
annually.
Section 1(b) of H. R. 1273 would restore VA's authority to provide
a reimbursement allowance for the cost of a headstone or marker
furnished at private expense.
VA does not support enactment of section 1(b) of H.R. 1273. Current
law authorizes VA to provide a Government-furnished headstone or marker
for the private cemetery grave of an eligible veteran who died on or
after November 1, 1990, regardless of whether the grave has been marked
at private expense. We have found that the Government's provision of a
first or second headstone or marker is a benefit many families expect
in order to recognize their loved one's service to the Nation, and it
is consistent with the National Cemetery Administration's mission of
honoring and memorializing our veterans. Current law also authorizes VA
to provide, upon request, a medallion or similar device signifying
veteran status in lieu of a Government-furnished headstone or marker
for an eligible veteran's grave in a private cemetery. This authority
permits VA to recognize and honor veterans who are buried in a private
cemetery that does not allow placement of a Government-furnished
headstone or marker.
For veterans who died between October 18, 1979, and October 31,
1990, VA is authorized to pay an allowance to families who purchased a
private headstone or marker in lieu of obtaining a Government-furnished
headstone or marker for a veteran's grave in a private cemetery. In
1990, Congress terminated the allowance. Although the allowance helps
offset the cost of acquiring a private headstone or marker, it does not
serve to recognize a veteran's service, as would a Government-furnished
marker or a medallion that can be affixed to a private headstone or
marker. VA believes that the second-marker benefit and the new
medallion option eliminate the need to offer a subsidy to assist with
the purchase of a private headstone or marker that does not honor the
veteran's service. Further, section 1(b) would provide for the
reimbursement of the cost of privately furnished headstones or markers
without any dollar limit, which would significantly increase mandatory
spending.
We estimate that the benefit costs associated with enactment of
H.R. 1273 would be $96.2 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, $466.3
million for the 5-year period from FY 2009 to FY 2013, and $881 million
for the 10-year period from FY 2009 to FY 2018. We estimate that the
administrative costs would be $12.1 million for FY 2009, $64.9 million
over 5 years, and $135.7 million over 10 years.
H.R. 1900
H.R. 1900 would extend eligibility for pension to veterans who
received an expeditionary medal for a period of active military, naval,
or air service other than a period of war and to their survivors.
VA does not support enactment of H.R. 1900. Historically, pension
has been provided only to veterans with wartime service and their
survivors. This change would be inconsistent with the longstanding
policy of distinguishing between peacetime and wartime service for
pension purposes. Providing both peacetime and wartime veterans with
identical pension benefits implies that there is no distinction between
the types of service. We do not support this bill because it would
contradict the intended purpose for the pension program.
We do not have adequate data to accurately estimate the costs that
would result from enactment of this bill.
H.R. 1901
H.R. 1901 would extend pension eligibility to peacetime veterans
who performed active service in the Republic of Korea between February
1, 1955, and August 4, 1964, or May 8, 1975, and August 1, 1990; in
Lebanon or Grenada between August 24, 1982, and July 31, 1984; or in
Panama between December 20, 1989, and January 31, 1990 (inclusive of
each of the preceding dates).
VA does not support enactment of H.R. 1901. Although the periods of
service listed in this bill are known for having war-like conflicts,
they have not been considered periods of war. This bill would therefore
create inconsistency in benefit eligibility among peacetime veterans.
It would also imply that the service of these veterans is more valuable
than the service of other peacetime veterans.
We estimate that the benefit costs associated with enactment of
this bill would be $8.0 million for FY 2009, $42.0 million for the 5-
year period from FY 2009 to FY 2013, and $89.8 million for the 10-year
period from FY 2009 to FY 2018.
We are sending a similar report to Ranking Republican Member Steve
Buyer.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the
Administration's program.
Sincerely yours,
James B. Peake, M.D.
Secretary