[Senate Hearing 110-188]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-188
HEARING ON PENDING BENEFITS LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 9, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-539 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii, Chairman
John D. Rockefeller IV, West Larry E. Craig, Idaho, Ranking
Virginia Member
Patty Murray, Washington Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
Barack Obama, Illinois Richard M. Burr, North Carolina
Bernard Sanders, (I) Vermont Johnny Isakson, Georgia
Sherrod Brown, Ohio Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina
Jim Webb, Virginia Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas
Jon Tester, Montana John Ensign, Nevada
William E. Brew, Staff Director
Lupe Wissel, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
May 9, 2007
SENATORS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., Chairman, U.S. Senator from Hawaii........ 1
Craig, Hon. Larry E., Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from Idaho.... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Webb, Hon. Jim , U.S. Senator from Virginia...................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington................. 7
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from Vermont................. 8
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from Georgia.................. 10
Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from Illinois................... 10
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington............... 34
Tester, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Montana..................... 46
Brown, Hon. Sherrod, U.S. Senator from Ohio...................... 121
WITNESSES
Cooper, Hon. Daniel L., Under Secretary for Benefits, Department
of Veterans Affairs; accompanied by John H. Thompson, Deputy
General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs................ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Response to written questions submitted by:
Hon. Patty Murray.......................................... 25
Hon. Barack Obama.......................................... 26
Johnny Isakson............................................. 33
Beck, Meredith, National Policy Director, Wounded Warrior Project
(WWP).......................................................... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka...................................................... 53
Blake, Carl, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of
America........................................................ 53
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka...................................................... 61
Hilleman, Eric, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service,
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.................. 62
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka...................................................... 69
Hollingsworth, Kimo S., National Legislative Director, American
Veterans (AMVETS).............................................. 70
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka...................................................... 74
Lawrence, Brian E., Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans..................................... 75
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka...................................................... 86
Norton, Colonel Robert F., USA (Ret.), Deputy Director,
Government Relations, Military Officers Association of America. 88
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka...................................................... 95
Petkoff, Alec S., Assistant Director, Veterans Affairs and
Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion................. 95
Prepared statement........................................... 97
Addendum................................................... 107
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka...................................................... 117
APPENDIX
Ciccolella, Hon. Charles A., Assistant Secretary, Veterans'
Employment and Training Service, Department of Labor; prepared
statement...................................................... 125
Sweeney, Legislative Director, National Association of State
Approving
Agencies; prepared statement................................... 126
Greene, Hon. William P., Jr., Chief Judge; letter................ 130
Chisholm, Robert V. Chisholm, Past President, National
Organization of Veterans' Advocates; letter.................... 132
Repka, Michael, X., Secretary of Federal Affairs, American
Academy of
Ophthalmology; letter.......................................... 133
HEARING ON PENDING BENEFITS LEGISLATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:29 a.m., in
room 418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Akaka, Murray, Obama, Brown, Tester,
Webb, Sanders, Craig, and Isakson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, CHAIRMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Chairman Akaka. The hearing on pending benefits legislation
of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will come to order.
Good morning and Aloha. Welcome everyone to the Committee's
hearing on pending benefits legislation. We have a
comprehensive agenda today and I will make my opening remarks
quite brief so that we can get started.
The ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have brought
the needs of veterans and their families to the forefront and,
as a result, there are many bills on the agenda. Many of these
bills focus on the needs of the highest priority veterans--
those with service-connected disabilities. Recognition of the
special needs of these veterans is a necessary measure of
gratitude afforded to those veterans whose lives were
irrevocably altered by their service to this country.
There are also a number of bills before us this morning
that we have seen in prior Congresses and others that are new.
These may reflect the change in leadership in the Senate. My
belief is that the Committee should look at all items except
for those that have had no support in previous years. Thus, we
have a full schedule today. I am pleased that so many have
taken an active interest in the well-being of our Nation's
finest citizens.
I want to speak very briefly about the items on the agenda
that I have introduced:
First, S. 423, Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living
Adjustment Act of 2007, which I introduced with my good friend
and Ranking Minority Member, Senator Craig, and five other
Members of this Committee on January 29, would increase the
rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected
disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity
compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans,
among other benefits, effective December 1, 2007.
Many of these more than three million recipients of those
benefits depend upon these tax-free payments not only to
provide for their own basic needs, but those of their spouses,
children and parents as well. Without an annual COLA increase,
these veterans and their families would see the value of their
hard-earned benefits slowly diminish, and we, as a Congress,
would be in dereliction of our duty to ensure that those who
sacrificed so much for this country receive the benefits and
services to which they are entitled.
Disbursement of disability compensation to our Nation's
veterans constitutes one of the core missions of the Department
of Veterans Affairs. It is a necessary measure of gratitude
afforded to those veterans whose lives were irrevocably altered
by their service to this country.
Second, S. 1163, Blinded Veterans Paired Organ Act of 2007,
which I introduced along with three other Members of this
Committee, would amend the eligibility requirements for two
specific benefits provided to veterans with a service-connected
disability due to blindness.
I have also introduced two bills intended to address needs
of veterans with respect to various insurance programs:
S. 643, the Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2007, would
increase the maximum amount of supplemental life insurance
available to totally disabled veterans, under the Service
Disabled Veterans Insurance program, from $20,000 to $40,000,
bringing the total value of this benefit for totally disabled
veterans up to $50,000.
S. 1315, the Disabled Veterans Insurance Improvement Act of
2007, would increase the maximum amount of Veterans' Mortgage
Life Insurance that a service-connected disabled veteran may
purchase from the current cap of $90,000 to $200,000. This
provision would ensure that this important benefit, that helps
secure the financial future of many veterans and their
families, keeps pace with changes in the economy. This
legislation would also establish a new life insurance program
for disabled veterans that provides up to a maximum of $50,000
in level-premium term life insurance coverage. Importantly this
program would be based on the 2001 Commissioners Standard
Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality rather than the 1941
mortality table that the Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance
program is based upon.
Finally, S. 1215 would make a number of small but necessary
changes in existing laws relating to education and employment.
It would raise the funding cap for State Approving Agencies and
update various reporting requirements for employment and
unemployment statistics collected by the Department of Labor.
In addition it would provide for a waiver of the residency
requirement for State Veterans' Employment and Training
directors and a two-year extension of a rate increase for on-
the-job and apprenticeship
training.
As is the case every Session, the biggest hurdle for
implementation of these bills into law is cost. I am working to
find appropriate offsets within the Committee's jurisdiction.
I thank the witnesses from VA and other organizations for
coming today to share their views. I am sympathetic to the fact
that the number of measures before us this morning is unusually
large and that a number of them may have been added to the
agenda only recently. Witnesses may not have had an opportunity
to review them and formulate positions. Therefore, the
Committee will hold the record of this hearing open for two
weeks so that witnesses can submit supplemental views on any
legislative item. It is important that we have your input well
in advance of our mark up that is tentatively scheduled for
June.
I look forward to hearing from each of you this morning.
Now I will call on Senator Craig for his statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, RANKING MEMBER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Holding this hearing and moving these pieces of legislation, I
think is critical to our veterans agenda here in the Senate.
You have introduced a variety, as have I. There are six of
these pieces of legislation that I have introduced and I will
mention them briefly.
S. 225 expands eligibility for retroactive benefits under
the traumatic injury protection under Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance program and that is going to be extremely
important as it relates to the type of coverage, because right
now, that is only in theater. This allows out-of-theater. In
fact, it is my understanding we have a young man in the
audience today who would benefit from this, Toshiro Carrington,
who lost a hand in an explosive event. It occurred outside the
war zone, so he is not eligible. This would allow eligibility
of the kind that would fit his particular injury and I think
that is important. No matter where you serve, if you are
serving our country and you are injured traumatically, the
benefit should be available to you.
S. 1265 expands eligibility for Veterans' Mortgage Life
Insurance to include servicemembers receiving specially adapted
housing assistance.
S. 1266 increases aid to States in interring veterans by
increasing the plot allowance paid to States by VA, repealing
the time limitation within which States must apply for
reimbursement from VA, and expanding VA's ability to provide
grants to States to operate State cemeteries.
S. 1289 modifies the salary terms and recall rules
affecting the judges of the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims. Let me stop there for a moment, Mr. Chairman, and say
over my Chairmanship and now as a Ranking Member, I have spent
a good deal of time with the Court. Thanks to all of our
effort, we now have it at full speed, meaning all of the judges
that are eligible for the Court have been appointed, nominated,
or, I should say, nominated, appointed, and are actively
serving. They have recalled judges that are in retirement to
bring them back to bring down the caseload. I was over recently
again to visit with the Chief Judge and other judges and it is
very impressive, what they have accomplished and what they are
accomplishing in bringing down the caseload, and yet the cases
are still there and they are large in number. We have veterans
waiting. We believe this legislation helps improve the
character of the Court as it relates to the need to be timely
and responsible.
S. 1290 overhauls the law governing State Approving
Agencies to provide VA with the flexibility in contracting with
SAAs, require coordination with other entities that approve
educational institutions, and require accountability.
And lastly, my last one, S. 1293, improves and updates
educational programs for veterans, Guard and Reserve members,
and spouses and children of veterans, so it is an expansion of
the overall educational benefits as a part of that.
Thank you very much, and again, thank you for holding this
hearing.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Larry E. Craig, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senator from Idaho
Let me first thank our witnesses for responding to a task that I
can only liken to the 12 labors of Hercules. Giving us your views on 26
bills is quite an undertaking. Thank you for your work.
Mr. Chairman, we have quite a challenge on our hands. If I had to
venture a guess I'd say the collective cost of all 26 bills on today's
agenda is over $100 billion. And we have yet to even consider health
care legislation, a task we will take up in a couple of weeks.
All of us on this Committee and in this Congress want to improve
benefits and services for our veterans. I myself have six bills on
today's agenda. But I am also committed to keeping our fiscal house in
order, and I do not exempt my own legislation from that imperative.
Let me read from a budget letter signed a decade ago by all of the
Members, Republicans and Democrats, of the Senate Committee on
Veterans' Affairs. There are five of us who signed that letter still
serving on the Committee today. The sentiments expressed were
appropriate then, and I believe they provide an excellent framework for
debate on new legislative proposals--and how we should pay for those
proposals--today:
In preparing these comments, the Committee's Members have kept in
mind the fiscal limitations within which we must operate if we are to
get Federal spending under control and thereby reduce the Federal
deficit and debt. We believe that the Government can be fiscally
responsible while still fulfilling its commitments to the most
deserving among us--including our Nation's veterans. We also are
mindful of the fact that uncontrolled Federal spending threatens the
long-term health of the Nation's economy and, in turn, could adversely
affect the provision of veterans' benefits. Thus, we recognize that
those who have worn the uniform in defense of the Nation seek, as we
do, to protect the health of the Nation's economy.
With that Mr. Chairman, let me take a few minutes to give a brief
description of each of my bills. Our witnesses will provide a fuller
description in their testimony, so in the interest of time and to avoid
redundancy, I will be brief.
(1) S. 225 would expand eligibility for retroactive benefits under
the traumatic injury protection under Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance program.
(2) S. 1265 would expand eligibility for veterans' mortgage life
insurance to include servicemembers receiving adapted housing grant
assistance from VA.
3) S. 1266 would increase aid to states in interring veterans by
increasing the plot allowance paid to states by VA; repealing the time
limitation within which states must apply for reimbursements from VA;
and expanding VA's ability to provide grants to states to operate state
cemeteries.
(4) S. 1289 would help ensure the long-term ability of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to promptly dispense
justice in all veterans cases.
(5) S. 1290 would modernize outdated laws governing State approving
agencies (SAAs) to meet the demands of today's veterans. It would do
this by providing VA with flexibility in contracting with SAAs;
enhancing coordination with other entities that approve educational
institutions; and would promote greater accountability for performance.
. . . . and finally,
(6) S. 1293 would improve and update educational programs for
veterans, Guard and Reserve members, and spouses and children of
veterans.
This diverse selection of bills would, in my view, address a
number of important issues affecting our veterans. I believe they
provide a good starting point for improving and updating laws affecting
veterans' benefits.
Again, thank you all for being here today. I look forward to
hearing your
testimony.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Craig.
I would like to call for statements from Senator Webb,
Senator Murray, and Senator Sanders. Senator Webb?
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
holding these hearings today and I am pleased that the
Committee is considering so many pieces of worthwhile
legislation. I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the
bill that I introduced earlier this year, the Veterans
Educational Assistance Act, S. 22.
I am a veteran. I come from a family with a long history of
military service. I would like to say it would be difficult for
me to be sitting here today if it wasn't for the gracious
assistance that I received in my educational entitlements from
the United States Government.
This bill that I have introduced has ten cosponsors. It has
broad support among veterans groups, active support and also
the testimony from a number of witnesses today, and I think we
are seeing increased support.
It is designed to expand educational benefits to these
people who have served after 9/11 in the tradition that the
benefits people coming back from World War II received,
offering educational assistance much more broadly than exists
today. In the 1940s, as you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the GI
Bill helped transform entire notions of equality in our
society. It was designed to help veterans readjust to civilian
life, to avoid unemployment, and to give them the opportunity
to reach the level of their talent. The post-World War II GI
Bill paid for veterans tuition, it bought their books, it paid
fees, and it also gave them a monthly stipend, and nearly eight
million veterans after World War II were able to use this
benefit.
The bill that I have introduced is a mirror of the World
War II GI Bill. It is designed to give the appropriate level of
recognition and respect to people who have been serving since
9/11 rather than having to rely on the Montgomery GI Bill,
which is a peacetime bill, and requires a pay-in. It was not a
bad GI Bill when the operational tempo was less and when the
country was in a different situation.
I am not going to go through all of the different elements
in the bill that I introduced. I would like to have a longer
statement submitted for the record, if I may.
But I just want to say that when we are talking about truly
honoring service and truly taking care of the people who have
served in an affirmative way, I can't think of a better thing
to do than to allow them to reach the level of their talent
with the type of educational assistance that will allow them to
go to any school that they can get into. We are not seeing that
today. The Montgomery GI Bill--I can say this from years now of
association with people who have been serving since 9/11,
younger folks--the Montgomery GI Bill makes it very tough for
these young men and women to get into better schools which they
might be able to if they had this kind of assistance.
I believe this bill will have a positive effect on military
recruitment, despite what we have heard from some people in the
Administration, because it will broaden the socio-economic
make-up of the military and it will reduce the direct costs of
recruitment.
So I hope we can have support for this bill. I am pleased
to receive testimony on it and I look forward to the rest of
the hearing. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Webb follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Webb, U.S. Senator from Virginia
I am pleased that this Committee is considering so many pieces of
worthwhile legislation. Among those bills, I would like to discuss the
Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007.
As a veteran who hails from a family with a long history of
military service, I am proud to have offered this bill as my first
piece of legislation in the U.S. Senate on January 4 of this year.
This bill has ten cosponsors and is supported by the Enlisted
Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS), the
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA),
and the Air Force Sergeants Association. Moreover, the written
testimony of many of today's witnesses indicates further broad support
for this bill.
The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 is
designed to expand the educational benefits that our Nation offers to
the brave men and women who have served us so honorably since the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Most of us know that our country has a tradition--since World War
II--of offering educational assistance to returning veterans. In the
1940s, the first ``GI bill'' helped transform notions of equality in
American society. The GI Bill program was designed to help veterans
readjust to civilian life, avoid high levels of unemployment, and give
veterans the opportunity to receive the education and training that
they missed while bravely serving in the military.
The post-World War II GI Bill paid for veterans' tuition, books,
fees, and other training costs, and also gave a monthly stipend. After
World War II, 7.8 million veterans used the benefits given under the
original GI Bill in some form, out of a wartime veteran population of
15 million.
Let me briefly summarize some of the reforms that are contained in
the bill I am introducing today.
First, these increased educational benefits will be available to
those members of the military who have served on active duty since
September 11, 2001. In general, to qualify, veterans must have served
at least 2 years of active duty, with at least some period of active
duty time served beginning on or after September 11, 2001.
This legislation also includes those who have served in the Reserve
and National Guard. Those who have an aggregate total of 24 months
active duty since 9/11 will be eligible for month for month education
benefits. Those in the Reserve and National Guard who have been on
active duty for 36 months or more will be eligible for the whole
benefit.
Next, the bill provides for educational benefits to be paid for a
duration of time that is linked to time served in the military.
Generally, veterans will not receive assistance for more than a total
of 36 months, which equals four academic years.
Third, as I mentioned a moment ago, my bill would allow veterans
pursuing an approved program of education to receive payments covering
the established charges of their program, room and board, and a monthly
stipend of $1,000. Moreover, the bill would allow additional payments
for tutorial assistance, as well as licensure and certification tests.
Fourth, veterans would have up to fifteen years to use their
educational assistance entitlement. But veterans would be barred from
receiving concurrent assistance from this program and another similar
program, such as the Montgomery GI Bill program.
Finally, under this bill, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would
administer the program, promulgate rules to carry out the new law, and
pay for the program from funds made available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs for the payment of readjustment benefits.
Again, I note that the benefits I have outlined today essentially
mirror the benefits allowed under the GI Bill enacted after World War
II. That bill helped spark economic growth and expansion for a whole
generation of Americans. The bill I introduce today likely will have
similar beneficial effects. As the post-World War II experience so
clearly indicated, better educated veterans have higher income levels,
which in the long run will increase tax revenues.
Moreover, a strong GI Bill will have a positive effect on military
recruitment, broadening the socio-economic makeup of the military and
reducing the direct costs of recruitment.
Perhaps more importantly, better-educated veterans have a more
positive readjustment experience. This experience lowers the costs of
treating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other readjustment-related
difficulties.
The United States has never erred when it has made sustained new
investments in higher education and job training. Enacting the Post-9/
11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 is not only the right
thing to do for our men and women in uniform, but it also is a strong
tonic for an economy plagued by growing disparities in wealth, stagnant
wages, and the outsourcing of American jobs.
I am a proud veteran who is honored to serve this great Nation. As
long as I represent Virginians in the U.S. Senate, I will make it a
priority to help protect our brave men and women in uniform.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Webb.
Senator Murray?
STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
for holding this really important hearing. I also have a
hearing at DOD with Secretary Gates, so I won't be able to stay
for all the hearing, but I want all the witnesses to know that
we have your testimony and we will be following it. I am
pleased to see a number of really excellent bills coming before
the Committee today because, for me, as you know, it is keeping
a promise to those who served us and we are looking at a number
of pieces of legislation today that will help us keep that
promise.
You know, when I talk to my veterans at home today, they
often tell me that they are forced to wait months or even years
to get their claims processed. We are hearing about veterans
who are getting different ratings and different benefits across
the country and arbitrary limits on too many of the benefits
that slam the door in the face of a lot of our veterans. We
have a lot of veterans who are coming home from serving us
overseas today, and when they do, they find themselves fighting
their own government, and to me, that is just wrong.
There are a lot of good ideas we are considering today. I
do have two bills before the Committee I just wanted to
highlight real quickly, both of them having to do with benefits
that are denied because of artificial or arbitrary deadlines.
When our servicemembers answer the call from our country and
they get home and are hit by an asterisk, it is very
frustrating. Some arbitrary exclusion suddenly makes them
ineligible for the benefits that they should receive, and I
have often found that these exclusions aren't based on any kind
of logic, but they are just arbitrary, artificial limits.
I have two bills, one having to do with prisoners of war
benefits, because today, if you are a prisoner of war for more
than 30 days, you get benefits. If you are held in captivity
for 29 days, then you are just told, sorry, no help available
for you, and to me, that is extremely arbitrary.
The second one has to do especially with our Gulf War
veterans who are developing multiple sclerosis at extremely
high rates and they are told, if you are diagnosed within 7
years, you get benefits, but if you are diagnosed one day
later, you are denied benefits. Well, MS is a disease I am
extremely familiar with. My father, who was a World War II
veteran, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, was in a
wheelchair most of my life, and I know how difficult that
disease is to diagnose. For veterans who don't get the right
care or don't have the ability to get diagnosed quickly, to me,
it is just wrong to deny them the benefits because they finally
got diagnosed a day late.
So I have two bills that address both of those issues and I
am glad the Committee is considering them and hope that they
will be approved later on.
I would just add for all of us, we should know that a
significantly high number of veterans who served in the Persian
Gulf during the Gulf War do have MS and we don't know what the
exact cause is. It could be experimental vaccines or toxins
from the oil well fires or Sarin exposure or pesticides, combat
stress. We don't know, but I think it is something that we all
need to be focused on because we are now seeing the same kinds
of effects from our veterans who are coming home from Iraq, and
as they are there longer and come home, I think it is something
we do need to keep track of.
So I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can approve both of those
bills that I have and I commend many Members of our Committee
who have brought forward really excellent pieces of legislation
today.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Murray.
Senator Sanders?
STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this important hearing. I don't think that there is
much debate that for many, many years now, we have not treated
our veterans with the respect and the dignity to which they are
entitled. The idea that there are waiting lines all over
America today, the idea that in recent years the VA has thrown
hundreds and hundreds of Category 8 veterans off of VA health
care is to my mind not acceptable. At a time when this
government believes that we can provide hundreds and hundreds
of billions of dollars to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1
percent of the American people, I think we can take care of
veterans and give them the health care and other benefits that
they are entitled to.
Mr. Chairman, as you well know, over the years, we have
seen a number of the veterans service organizations come
together in, I think, a wonderful effort to create what we call
the Independent Budget. These veterans service organizations,
which include AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed
Veterans of America, the VFW, they have spent an enormous
amount of time with some of the leading experts in this country
to come up with a document. It is a document called the
Independent Budget and they have assessed what they, as
veterans, believe the needs of veterans are.
I want to thank many of those veterans service
organizations for working with me and my staff in developing
legislation that we think essentially incorporates virtually
all of the concerns that the veterans service organizations
have had through the Independent Budget, and we have introduced
legislation, which is S. 1326, which does just that. We have
worked with the veterans, and again, I want to thank them for
their help on this. In many ways, what we have done is put into
legislative form the Independent Budget.
Now, what are the areas that were covered? Very briefly,
Category 8 veterans, while all of us should be very concerned
about taking care of the 24,000 veterans who are coming back
from Iraq who have been wounded and the tens of thousands more
who have PTSD and TBI, let us not forget the veterans who
served in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, and so
forth. I think that if people put their lives on the line to
defend this country, you don't throw them off of VA health care
because they have incomes of over $28,000. This legislation
addresses that, puts them back into the system. This
legislation deals with dependency and indemnity compensation,
survivor plan offset.
It deals with the over 400,000 backlogged claims at the VA.
How many times, Mr. Chairman, have we heard people coming
before us where people are waiting month after month after
month, year after year after year, to get their claims
processed? This is not acceptable and we are going to have to
spend the money to get the staff to address that problem.
This legislation also amends other benefit programs
important to veterans. Over time, Congress and the Department
of Veterans Affairs have added many benefits and assistance
programs for our Nation's veterans and their families. As with
many other programs, the benefits did not meet all the needs of
our veterans and others and have not been updated in many
years, rendering many of the benefits much less useful.
For example, the Independent Budget notes the low level of
grants the VA gives severely disabled veterans for adapting
their automobiles. In 1946, the $1,600 allowance represented 85
percent of average retail cost and a sufficient amount to pay
the full cost of automobiles in the low-priced field. By
contrast, in 1997, the allowance was $5,500, except the need
now is about $21,000. So we have got to update that. If we are
going to give people grants, we want to make them relevant to
the year 2007, et cetera, et cetera.
Burial benefits are similar. I think right now, the
Congress provides burial benefits of $300, Mr. Chairman. Well,
if anyone can do a burial for $300, let me know about it.
Obviously, that is no longer realistic in the year 2007 and
this legislation substantially expands that.
Bottom line, Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to address the
real problems facing our veterans in a comprehensive way. It is
going to be expensive, but we have the moral obligation to do
the right thing and I think our legislation is fairly
comprehensive in covering many of the needs that veterans have
brought forth.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Sanders.
Senator Isakson?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
calling the hearing and I will be very brief so we can get to
Admiral Cooper to hear from him.
I would like to compliment all my other fellow Committee
Members in focusing on legislation to improve veterans
benefits. My interest has been with the Gulf War, the War in
Iraq, the War in Afghanistan and a more seamless and a better
transition from DOD to veterans health care. I have focused in
a number of these hearings on what General Schoomaker, who is
now head at Walter Reed, did in Augusta with the hand-off from
DOD to the veterans facility there, where we are doing
tremendous work on those veterans who have prostheses and other
types of results of the war, where the hand-off has been
seamless. The VA is now able to take a load off the DOD and the
veterans health care is really second to none in that facility.
I am hoping that we can use that as a template for other
veterans facilities around the country to have a more seamless
hand-off from DOD to the Veterans' Administration medical
facilities.
So I look forward to hearing from Admiral Cooper and I
appreciate very much your calling the hearing today, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson.
Senator Obama?
STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Obama. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Ranking Member Craig, as well, and your staff for putting the
legislative hearing together today.
Before I discuss the specific legislation, I want to say a
few words about a troubling news report from last week.
According to AP, the VA has paid more than $3.8 million in
bonuses to its staff, including bonuses of up to $33,000 to
officials who crafted the Department's flawed budgeting that
led to a billion-dollar shortfall. Bonuses were also paid to VA
officials who managed the disability claims system despite the
fact that there is almost a six-month wait for veterans to
receive their decisions. According to this report, bonuses for
senior VA officials now average $16,000, the most of any
Federal agency. I know others on this Committee share my
concern about these bonuses.
I am a strong supporter of Federal services, but I want to
press the Department to provide more detailed information about
these bonuses. Chairman Akaka and his staff have already done
excellent work in analyzing the apparent disparities in these
bonus awards, but we need additional information and comment
from the VA, including a full justification of these bonuses,
and I ask you to relate this request to Secretary Nicholson.
Admiral Cooper, I would also like to hear your views today on
what criteria you think are fair in determining bonus awards
going forward.
Let me now turn to today's agenda. Under discussion are
provisions of the Lane-Evans Veterans Health Benefits
Improvement Act, which I introduced over the past two
Congresses. This bill would enhance outreach to members of the
National Guard and Reserves before they separate from service
and require more comprehensive information tracking and
reporting from VA and DOD. The measure would also establish
one-on-one, face-to-face mental health screenings for all
returning servicemembers and require individual electronic
records upon discharge.
Each day, we see the consequences of both poor planning
within the VA and inadequate information tracking of the needs
of our veterans. We continue to receive deeply troubling
reports of lengthy and unnecessary bureaucratic delays in
benefit claims and long delays in obtaining health
appointments. As a result, many of our heroes languish with
serious mental and physical health conditions while awaiting VA
care, and I believe we can do better.
The Global War on Terrorism Veterans Information System
that I proposed under the Lane-Evans Act would enable better
planning and assist the VA, as well as Congress, in setting
policy to help our veterans. The VA argues that maintaining
this system and submitting quarterly reports is too onerous and
potentially costly. I would argue that the recent trend of
budget shortfalls and an overwhelmed benefits system justify a
more robust effort to anticipate veterans needs.
I am also proud that this measure would help address the
current disparity in how members of the National Guard and
Reserves access the benefits to which they are entitled. This
Act would enhance important outreach efforts to such members
before they separate.
So, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to work with
the Chairman in passing the Lane-Evans Act and I thank the
veterans service organizations that are here today who have
provided invaluable feedback. Thank you.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Obama.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Akaka. Senator Craig?
Senator Craig. Before we proceed to our witnesses, let me
ask unanimous consent that my full statement be a part of the
record.
Chairman Akaka. Without objection, it will be part of the
record.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Chairman Akaka. And now I welcome our witnesses from VA,
Admiral Daniel Cooper, Under Secretary for Benefits, who is
accompanied by Mr. Jack Thompson, Deputy General Counsel. I
thank you for being here. I want you to know that your full
statement will be placed in the record of this hearing.
Admiral Cooper, we will lead off with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL L. COOPER, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;
ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN H. THOMPSON, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL,
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Admiral Cooper Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee, I would like to briefly mention our views on just a
few of the bills on today's agenda. I regret that time has not
permitted us to have cleared views and estimates on all those
that we have seen just recently.
On S. 117, the VA would be pleased to consult with the
Department of Defense as provided in S. 117, the Lane-Evans
Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2007, regarding
the military services outreach to members of the National Guard
and the Reserve and to help explain Federal benefits and
services available upon deactivation. We would work with these
services to reach the greatest number of veterans. Hence, we
would not limit ourselves merely to the limited time frame of
Benefits Delivery at Discharge.
This bill would also require VA to establish and maintain a
comprehensive record of the veterans of the Global War on
Terror who seek VA benefits and services and a record of the
benefits and services we provided them. We are very concerned
that the bill's requirements to compile and frequently report
to Congress massive amounts of data, much of which is not
currently available in the detail and manner specified, would
require us to divert considerable resources from our primary
responsibilities of providing timely and accurate benefits and
services to all our veterans. We believe the costs of
compliance would be very consequential and, therefore, we are
unable to support these provisions of the bill. However, we
would welcome the opportunity to work with your staff to
identify program information that is currently lacking and that
would be most helpful to the Committee in meeting its
responsibilities.
S. 225 would eliminate the requirement that a qualifying
traumatic injury for the TSGLI program be the direct result of
action in Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The
elimination of this requirement would increase the number of
individuals who could qualify retroactively for traumatic
injury coverage for injuries sustained prior to the general
effective date of the TSGLI coverage. We defer to DOD on this
bill because DOD would be responsible for the additional costs
associated with this change.
S. 423, the Veterans Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment
Act of 2007, would mandate a COLA adjustment in the rates of
disability compensation and the dependency and indemnity
compensation payable for periods beginning on or after December
1, 2007. We wholeheartedly support the proposed COLA, which is
consistent with the President's recommendation.
S. 847, VA does not support enactment of S. 847. This bill
would eliminate the requirement that the manifestation of
multiple sclerosis must occur within seven years of separation
from service to trigger the presumption of service connection.
The current presumptive period of seven years is already the
most generous one provided under the chronic disease provisions
of the current law and we are aware of no scientific or medical
justification for lifelong presumption.
S. 1096 would expand VA's Housing Adaptation Assistance
Programs for veterans and active duty servicemembers who have
severe disabilities. First, it would authorize home
improvements and structural alterations for certain totally
disabled servicemembers. VA has no objection to this provision.
Next, it would make specially adapted housing assistance
available to disabled veterans with severe burn injuries. VA
favors this provision but recommends including disabled active
duty servicemembers and excluding burn injuries from the
requirement to be permanent disability.
S. 1096 would also allow disabled members of the Armed
Services to receive these grants while temporarily residing in
housing owned by family members. VA supports this objective but
would like to work with the Committee staff to improve the
drafting of this provision.
S. 1163, Section 2 of the Blinded Veterans Paired Organ Act
of 2007 would liberalize the eligibility for compensation and
for specially adapted housing benefits for veterans in certain
cases of impairment of vision involving both eyes. Subject to
Congress's enactment of legislation offsetting the increased
costs associated with this enactment, VA supports the
compensation amendment because it would treat visual impairment
in both eyes similarly to the way hearing loss in both ears is
treated under the current law. VA opposes, however, the
specially adapted housing amendment because it would treat
visual impairment differently from the manner in which the
other qualifying disability, anatomical loss, or loss of use of
both hands, is treated.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy
to entertain questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Cooper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel L. Cooper,
Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs
Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on several bills of great interest to
veterans. I will comment today only on the provisions of the bills that
affect the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
s. 117
Section 104 of S. 117, the ``Lane Evans Veterans Health and
Benefits Improvement Act of 2007,'' would require the Department of
Defense (DOD) to provide members of the National Guard and Reserve
comprehensive outreach on the Federal benefits and services available
upon deactivation from active duty and upon discharge or release from
the Armed Forces. It would also require DOD to consult with the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs and other Federal officials and to report
to Congress on its actions in this regard.
VA supports the provision of outreach to members of the National
Guard and Reserve. However, VA believes such outreach should be
provided through the Pre-Discharge program rather than through the
Benefits Delivery at Discharge program (BDD). Servicemembers can
participate in the Pre-Discharge program within 180 days of discharge.
The BDD program, which is a part of the Pre-Discharge program, has more
restrictive time frames for participation. Therefore, outreach efforts
conducted in conjunction with the Pre-Discharge program would be more
likely to reach a greater number of servicemembers. At this time, VA
cannot determine the costs that would be associated with this
provision.
Section 201 of S. 117 would define temporally and geographically
the term ``Global War on Terrorism.'' Because the term ``Global War on
Terrorism'' appears nowhere else in title 38, United States Code, this
definition is apparently intended for purposes of section 202, which is
addressed below. However, even though S. 117 would not add the Global
War on Terrorism to the list in 38 U.S.C. Sec. (11) of ``period[s] of
war'' for VA benefit purposes or terminate the Persian Gulf War period,
which is the period of war we are currently in, this amendment could
cause confusion as to whether a veteran who served in the Global War on
Terrorism would be considered to be a veteran of two periods of war. In
addition, this definition would be unnecessary in view of our
objections to sections 202 and 203 of the bill.
Section 202 would require VA to establish and maintain an
information system to provide a comprehensive record of the veterans of
the Global War on Terrorism who seek VA benefits and services and of
the benefits and services VA provided to those veterans. The system
would be designed to permit accumulation, storage, retrieval, and
analysis of information on those veterans, benefits, and services and
to facilitate the preparation of quarterly reports on the effects of
participation in the Global War on Terrorism on veterans and VA.
Section 202(d) would require DOD, at its own cost, to provide VA with
information from its Global War on Terrorism Contingency Tracking
System as appropriate for purposes of VA's information system. Section
203 would require VA to submit to Congress quarterly reports on the
effects of participation in the Global War on Terrorism on veterans and
VA beginning not later than 90 days after the bill's enactment. For
each quarter, VA would be required to provide quarterly and aggregated
personal information, information on military service, and information
on health, counseling, and related benefits and services, and on
compensation, pension, and other benefits, including burial and
cemetery benefits, provided by VA. VA would be required to take
appropriate actions in preparing and submitting reports to ensure that
no personally identifying information on any particular veteran is
included or improperly released.
The bill's requirements to compile and frequently report to
Congress massive amounts of data, much of which are not currently
available, in the detail and manner specified would force VA to divert
considerable resources from our primary responsibilities of providing
timely and accurate benefits and services to all veterans, their
dependents, and survivors. We are as yet unable to reliably estimate
the costs of compliance in terms of both manpower and potential for
detracting from our ability to timely administer VA programs, but our
initial reaction is that they could be very consequential. We are
therefore unable to support sections 202 and 203 of the bill.
We are, of course, mindful of this Committee's oversight
responsibilities and would welcome the opportunity to work with staff
to identify program information that is currently lacking that would be
most helpful to the Committee in meeting its responsibilities.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is in the process of
analyzing the feasibility of carrying out the requirements of sections
202 and 203 with respect to health-care services and health-care-
related information. We will address the feasibility for VHA in our
statement for the Committee's legislative hearing on health-care bills
scheduled for May 23, 2007.
Sections 102, 103, and 205 of S. 117 concern DOD. Section 204 of
the bill concerns the Department of Labor (DOL). Because these
provisions affect only DOD and DOL, VA defers to those departments for
comments on these provisions. Section 101 deals with VA health-care
matters that will be addressed at the Committee's May 23 hearing.
s. 168
Section 1(b) of S. 168 would require VA to establish a national
cemetery in the Pikes Peak region, defined in section 1(a) as the
geographic area consisting of Teller, El Paso, Fremont, and Pueblo
counties in Colorado. Section 1(c) would require VA to consult with
Federal, State, and local officials before selecting a site for the
cemetery. Section 1(d) would authorize VA to accept the gift of an
appropriate parcel of real property, over which VA would have
administrative jurisdiction, to be used to establish the cemetery. The
property would be considered a gift to the United States for purposes
of Federal income, estate, and gift taxes. Finally, section 1(e) would
require VA to report to Congress on the establishment of the cemetery,
including an establishment schedule and estimated costs.
VA does not support S. 168 because the need for a new national
cemetery in the Pikes Peak region is not demonstrated under the
criteria VA has adopted and Congress has endorsed for determining the
need for additional national cemeteries. The established criteria
require an unserved veteran population threshold of 170,000 within a
75-mile radius as appropriate for establishing new national cemeteries.
The vast majority of veterans who reside in the Pikes Peak region are
currently served by either Fort Logan National Cemetery or Fort Lyon
National Cemetery. Fort Logan National Cemetery will have casket and
cremation burial space available until approximately 2020. Fort Lyon
National Cemetery will have casket and cremation burial space available
until approximately 2030.
As required by law, VA is establishing a total of 12 new national
cemeteries, 6 of which have been opened for burials. The locations for
these cemeteries were determined from demographic studies of the
veteran population, which allow VA to focus its efforts on areas that
will serve the greatest number of veterans. The most recent demographic
study of the veteran population, which was completed in 2002, did not
indicate a need for a new national cemetery in Colorado.
Besides objecting to S. 168 because there is no demonstrated need
for a new national cemetery in the Pikes Peak region, we note that the
cost of establishing a new cemetery is considerable. Based on recent
experience, the cost for establishing new national cemeteries ranges
from $500,000 to $750,000 for environmental compliance requirements; $1
million to $2 million for master planning and design; $1 million to $2
million for construction document preparation; $5 million to $10
million for land acquisition, if required; and $20 million to $30
million for construction. The average annual cost for operating a new
national cemetery ranges from $1 million to $2 million.
The VA State Cemetery Grants program, however, can provide
additional burial options for veterans in the Pikes Peak region.
Through this program, VA may provide up to 100 percent of the cost of
improvements in establishing a state veterans cemetery, including the
cost of initial equipment to operate the cemetery. VA worked with
Colorado officials in providing more than $6 million to establish a
state veterans cemetery in Grand Junction and would be pleased to
assist the State in exploring this option for the Pikes Peak region.
s. 225
Current law provides to members of the uniformed services who are
insured under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program coverage
against a traumatic injury sustained on or after December 1, 2005, that
results in a qualifying loss. In addition, a member of the uniformed
services who sustained a traumatic injury between October 7, 2001, and
November 30, 2005, that resulted in a qualifying loss is eligible for
coverage if the loss was a direct result of a traumatic injury incurred
in the theater of operations for Operation Enduring Freedom or
Operation Iraqi Freedom. S. 225 would eliminate the requirement that
the loss be the direct result of a traumatic injury incurred in the
theater of operations for Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi
Freedom, thereby increasing the number of individuals who could qualify
for traumatic injury coverage for injuries sustained before the general
effective date of the coverage.
VA defers to DOD on this bill because that department would be
responsible for additional costs associated with this change.
s. 423
S. 423, the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act
of 2007,'' would mandate a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in the
rates of disability compensation and dependency and indemnity
compensation (DIC) payable for periods beginning on or after December
1, 2007. The COLA would be the same as the COLA that will be provided
under current law to Social Security benefit recipients, which is
currently estimated to be an increase of 1.4 percent. This proposal is
identical to that proposed in the President's Fiscal Year 2008 budget
request to protect the affected benefits from the eroding effects of
inflation. VA supports this proposal and believes that the worthy
beneficiaries of these benefits deserve no less.
VA estimates that enactment would result in benefit costs of $348.4
million for Fiscal Year 2008 and $4.7 billion over the period Fiscal
Year 2008-2017.
s. 526
S. 526, the ``Veterans Employment and Training Act of 2007,'' would
expand the programs of education for which accelerated payment of
educational assistance may be made under the chapter 30 Montgomery GI
Bill program. Specifically, this measure would permit accelerated
payment of the basic educational assistance allowance to veterans
pursuing an approved program of education, in addition to the programs
now authorized such payment, lasting less than 2 years and leading to
employment in a transportation, construction, hospitality, or energy
sector of the economy. This provision would be effective for 4 years,
from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2011.
S. 526 is a departure from funding only high-technology, high-cost
programs. This bill would limit accelerated payment to programs of
study 2 years or less in length that would lead to employment in
specific areas. Expanding accelerated pay for other career fields could
be valuable to address existing workforce needs subject to Congress'
enactment of legislation offsetting the increased benefits cost.
However, any expansion must take into consideration accelerated pay's
original intent in developing the workforce for a high-technology
industry of the future. If enacted, VA estimates this bill would cost
$37 million in Fiscal Year 2008 and approximately $158 million over the
period of Fiscal Years 2008-2011.
s. 643
Under the National Service Life Insurance program, a veteran with a
service-connected disability may be provided life insurance, known as
Service Disabled Veterans Insurance (SDVI). If such an insured veteran
is totally disabled under specified conditions that qualify him or her
for waiver of premiums under current law, he or she is eligible for
supplemental insurance of up to $20,000. S. 643, the ``Disabled
Veterans Insurance Act of 2007,'' would increase the amount of
available supplemental insurance from $20,000 to $40,000.
Subject to Congress' enactment of legislation offsetting the
increased costs associated with the enactment of the new authority, VA
does not object to S. 643 because increasing the amount of available
supplemental SDVI to $40,000 would address a concern of veterans as
reported in an independent study commissioned by Congress, ``Program
Evaluation of Benefits for Survivors of Veterans with Service-Connected
Disabilities.'' This change would increase the financial security of
disabled veterans by affording them the opportunity to purchase
additional life insurance coverage otherwise not available to them. The
costs that would result from enactment would depend on whether an open
season would be provided for SDVI policy holders to apply for the
additional supplemental insurance. Currently, approximately 75,500 SDVI
policy holders qualify for supplemental insurance. Without an open
season, the additional coverage would cost $4.3 million over 5 years
and $14.5 million over 10 years with negligible administrative costs.
With a 1-year open season, the additional coverage would cost $25.7
million over 5 years and $50.9 million over 10 years with
administrative costs of approximately $100,000.
s. 698
S. 698, the ``Veterans' Survivors Education Enhancement Act of
2007,'' would expand and enhance educational assistance under VA's
Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance program codified in
chapter 35, title 38, United States Code.
Under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3511(a)(1), an eligible person may not receive
educational assistance under chapter 35 for more than 45 months or the
equivalent thereof in part-time training. Also, under section 3695(a),
a person may not receive more than 48 months of entitlement under
chapter 35 and one or more provisions of law listed in that section.
S. 698 would eliminate the 45-month limitation on entitlement under
chapter 35 and allow for dependents, spouses, and surviving spouses to
receive educational assistance up to a maximum dollar amount. It would
also exempt any entitlement received under chapter 35 from the 48-month
aggregate maximum entitlement allowed under more than one education
benefit program. Thus, for example, an eligible person could receive
full entitlement under chapter 35, then go on to receive full
entitlement under another education program or vice versa.
While we appreciate the desire to enhance the chapter 35
educational assistance benefit, we do not believe it would be equitable
to allow chapter 35 recipients to receive far more benefit dollars up
front and overall than veterans, servicemembers, or reservists who are
not eligible to receive benefits under chapter 35. There also would be
a significant cost associated with making chapter 35 entitlement exempt
from the 48-month maximum-entitlement rule.
S. 698 would allow an eligible dependent child to receive
educational assistance under the chapter 35 program until the child's
thirtieth birthday. Currently, such a child receives educational
assistance until age 26 (with certain exceptions). This, of course,
would allow more individuals to be eligible for chapter 35 benefits for
a longer period of time.
One of the purposes of this chapter is to aid eligible children in
reaching the educational status they might have obtained but for the
disability or death of the veteran parent. We have no evidence to show
that this purpose is not being fulfilled with the current age-26 cutoff
or that it would be better met if the age for the ending date of a
child's period of eligibility were 30.
Under current law the monthly educational assistance allowance for
chapter 35 is computed on the basis of the type of training being
pursued and the training time. S. 698 would eliminate any fixed monthly
educational assistance allowance. S. 698 does not define in what
increments payment should be disbursed. Instead, it provides for an
aggregate educational assistance amount of $80,000 and allows this to
be paid in any amount for institutional courses, vocational training,
apprenticeship or other on-job training, farm cooperative programs, and
special educational assistance for the educationally disadvantaged and/
or special restorative training. Correspondence training for spouses
would also be subject to this limit. Educational assistance, including
special training allowance, would be provided to eligible persons at an
institution located in the Republic of the Philippines at the rate of
$.50 for each dollar. S. 698 also specifies that the aggregate
educational assistance amount would be increased annually based on the
Consumer Price Index.
VA objects to the proposed new educational assistance payment for
several reasons. The $80,000 educational assistance amount bears little
or no connection to the cost of the education an eligible person might
be pursuing. This amount is more than the cost of tuition, fees, room,
and board charged at a 4-year public school according to the National
Center for Education Statistics. It far exceeds the cost of any
correspondence course an eligible person might pursue. Furthermore,
payment of $80,000 would mean that an apprentice or job trainee under
chapter 35 would actually receive a sharp decline in income when
training was completed and the journeyman-level wage attained.
Contrary to the stated purpose of chapter 35, if this provision
were enacted, an individual eligible for chapter 35 benefits could
receive $80,000 in educational assistance without receiving an
education. For example, an eligible individual could ask for and
receive $80,000 at the start of the first semester of a college program
then drop out after a short time. Under this bill and the provisions of
existing law concerning mitigating circumstances, the claimant could
keep the $80,000 even if the claimant never pursued any education
program again. This bill would remove the incentive for a student to
complete a program of educational training and, in effect, separate the
benefit from the whole program.
Finally, this provision as written would allow any eligible person
to request a lump-sum payment of $80,000 as soon as the person enrolled
in an approved training program. Thus, persons currently receiving
chapter 35 benefits could also request a lump-sum payment of $80,000 as
soon as this bill is enacted, regardless of how much they have already
received in chapter 35 benefits. This would result in significant up-
front costs.
The amendments made by S. 698 would be effective as of the date of
enactment of the Act. Since the bill eliminates the months of
entitlement charged for chapter 35 benefits, those persons still within
their delimiting date on the day the bill is enacted could request a
lump-sum payment of $80,000 even if they had previously exhausted their
entitlement under the current law. The bill does not address such
transitional issues for current chapter 35 beneficiaries and those
eligible persons still within their delimiting date.
Moreover, VA estimates that, if enacted, S. 698 would cost $7.2
billion in Fiscal Year 2008, $9.6 billion for the first 5 years, and
$13.1 billion over the 10-year period from Fiscal Year 2008 through
Fiscal Year 2017. Enactment of this bill would also require extensive
computer system changes, which VA estimates would cost $3 million.
For the foregoing reasons, VA cannot support S. 698.
s. 847
Current law provides a presumption that certain diseases
manifesting in veterans entitled to the presumption were incurred in or
aggravated by service, that is, that the diseases are service
connected, even if there is no evidence of such diseases in service. A
presumption is provided for certain chronic diseases if manifested to a
degree of disability of 10 percent or more within 1 year of separation
from service, for certain tropical diseases if manifested to a degree
of disability of 10 percent or more (generally) within 1 year of
separation from service, for active tuberculosis or Hansen's disease if
manifested to a degree of disability of 10 percent or more within 3
years of separation from service, and for multiple sclerosis if
manifested to a degree of disability of 10 percent or more within 7
years of separation from service. S. 847 would eliminate the
requirement that the manifestation of multiple sclerosis occur within 7
years of separation from service to trigger the presumption.
VA does not support enactment of this bill. First, the current
presumptive period of 7 years is already the most generous one provided
under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1112(a). Second, we are aware of no scientific or
medical justification for presuming multiple sclerosis to be service
connected, no matter how long after service it first manifests, in
light of the medical literature indicating that there is genetic
susceptibility to this disease of unknown cause. Even if a veteran
cannot qualify for the current presumption, service connection is not
precluded under current law if the veteran can establish that his
current multiple sclerosis is in fact related to his or her service.
Further liberalization would appear to undermine the purpose of
providing compensation for disabilities incurred in or aggravated by
active service.
VA estimates that the benefit costs of this bill if enacted would
be $185.5 million in the first year and $4.9 billion over 10 years. We
estimate administrative costs to be $4.7 million for 68 full-time
employees the first year and $85.3 million for 96 full-time employees
over 10 years.
s. 848
Section 2(a) of S. 848, the ``Prisoner of War Benefits Act of
2007,'' would eliminate the requirement that a veteran have been
detained or interned as a prisoner of war (POW) for at least 30 days to
be entitled to a presumption of service connection for certain diseases
currently listed in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1112(b)(3). Section 2(b) would add
two diseases, diabetes (type 2) and osteoporosis, to the list of
diseases in section 1112(b) that may be presumed to be service
connected for former POWs.
VA does not support elimination of the 30-day minimum internment
requirement because it is not reasonable to assume that extreme
deprivation of the type that could cause diseases listed in section
1112(b), such as those resulting from nutritional deficiencies, would
occur in less than 30 days. Just a few years ago, section 1112(b)
limited the presumption of service connection for specified diseases
associated with the POW experience to veterans who were former POWs and
were detained or interned for not less than 30 days. However, section
201 of the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-83, Sec. 201,
eliminated the 30-day requirement for psychosis, any anxiety state,
dysthymic disorder, organic residuals of frostbite, and post-traumatic
osteoarthritis. In implementing that amendment in its regulations, VA
noted that the diseases that remained subject to the 30-day
requirement, such as diseases associated with malnutrition, are
generally incurred over a prolonged period of internment. Interim Final
Rule, Presumptions of Service Connection for Diseases Associated with
Service Involving Detention or Internment as a Prisoner of War, 69 Fed.
Reg. 60,083, 60,088 (2004). Such a requirement is appropriate for
certain diseases if the evidence indicates that they are associated
only with prolonged captivity, such as with maladies normally resulting
from nutritional deprivation. Accordingly, VA does not support
elimination of the 30-day minimum internment requirement.
With respect to adding diabetes (type 2) and osteoporosis to the
list of diseases that may be presumed to be service connected for
former POWs, VA is not aware of any sound scientific or medical
evidence of an association between these diseases and internment as a
POW. Accordingly, VA does not support section 2(b) of S. 848.
Section 2(c) of S. 848 would authorize VA to establish a
presumption of service connection for former POWs for any disease for
which VA has determined, based on sound medical and scientific
evidence, that ``a positive association exists between (i) the
experience of being a [POW] and (ii) the occurrence of [the] disease in
humans.'' Section 2(c) would also require VA to issue certain
regulations and, in determining whether a positive association exists,
to consider recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Former
Prisoners of War and all other available sound medical and scientific
information and analyses.
VA does not support the procedure in section 2(c) for establishing
presumptive service connection for diseases associated with POW
internment because more appropriate and effective regulatory procedures
for identifying diseases associated with POW internment already exist.
Pursuant to the Secretary's authority provided by 38 U.S.C. Sec. 501(a)
to prescribe all rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to
carry out the laws administered by VA, including regulations with
respect to the nature and extent of proof and evidence, VA has
promulgated regulations, codified at 38 CFR Sec. 1.18, establishing a
new procedure for establishing POW presumptions. VA's establishment of
presumptive service connection for heart disease and stroke, which was
done under VA's regulatory procedure, demonstrates that the new
procedure is effective.
Section 2(c) of the bill would require VA, within specified
periods, to publish a notice or regulations in response to
recommendations received from the Advisory Committee on Former
Prisoners of War. Under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 541(a)(2), the Committee
comprises representatives of former POWs, disabled veterans, and health
care professionals. Under current law, VA must regularly consult with
the Committee and seek its advice on the compensation, health-care, and
rehabilitation needs of former POWs. Not later than July 1 of each odd-
numbered year through 2009, the Committee must submit to VA a report
recommending, among other things, administrative and legislative
action. The procedure outlined in section 2(c) of S. 848 would require
VA, within 60 days of receiving a Committee recommendation that a
presumption be established for a disease, to determine whether a
presumption is warranted. If VA determines that a presumption is
warranted, we would have to issue proposed regulations within 60 days
following that decision and issue a final rule within 90 days of
issuing the proposed rule. If VA determines that a presumption is not
warranted, we would have to publish a Federal Register notice
explaining the scientific basis for the determination within 60 days of
making the determination.
This procedure is similar to the procedure that Congress
established for herbicide and Gulf War presumptions under 38 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1116 and 1118, both of which generally concern VA rulemaking
following the receipt of a report from the National Academy of
Sciences. However, unlike the herbicide and Gulf War procedures, S. 848
would require strict guidelines for rulemaking in response to Committee
recommendations, which do not provide a thorough scientific review and
analysis upon which to establish presumptions. A determination as to
whether a disease should be added to the list of diseases warranting
presumptive service connection involves a lengthy process of scientific
study. Sixty days is not sufficient to conduct such a process. Under
current 38 CFR Sec. 1.18, the Secretary may contract with the
appropriate expert body, such as the National Academy of Sciences'
Institute of Medicine, for the necessary analysis of current science.
We believe this regulation provides a more scientifically sound basis
for creation of presumptions than that contemplated by S. 848.
Based on the amendments that would be made by section 2(a) of S.
848, VA estimates that approximately 99 former POWs would be affected
by this legislation and would apply for benefits in the first year and
1,102 would apply in the first 10 years. Assuming a 100-percent grant
rate, we further estimate that benefit costs would be $808,000 in the
first year and $9.9 million over 10 years.
Based on the amendments that would be made by section 2(b) of S.
848, VA estimates that approximately 4,045 former POWs would be
affected by this legislation and would apply for benefits in the first
year and 44,855 in the first 10 years. Assuming a 100-percent grant
rate, we further estimate that benefit costs would be $36.3 million in
the first year and $442.9 million over 10 years.
In addition, VA estimates that approximately 2,005 surviving
spouses would be affected by the amendments that would be made by
section 2(b) of S. 848 and would apply for benefits in the first year
and 27,332 would apply in the first 10 years. Assuming a 100-percent
grant rate, we estimate further benefit costs of $27.5 million in the
first year and $392.6 million over 10 years.
We estimate administrative costs to be $2.4 million for 29 full-
time employees in the first year and $5.1 million over 5 years.
Although section 2(c) would allow VA to add and remove presumptive
diseases, VA does not anticipate any regulatory changes. Therefore,
there are no benefits savings or costs associated with this authority.
s. 961
S. 961, the ``Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World
War II Act of 2007,'' would require VA to pay to certain merchant
mariners $1,000 per month. This new benefit would be available to an
otherwise qualified merchant mariner who served between December 7,
1941, and December 31, 1946, and who received an honorable-service
certificate from the Department of Transportation or DOD. The surviving
spouse of an eligible merchant mariner would be eligible to receive the
same monthly payment provided that he or she had been married to the
merchant mariner for at least one year.
VA does not support enactment of this bill for several reasons.
First, to the extent that S. 961 is intended to offer belated
compensation to merchant mariners for their service during World War
II, many merchant mariners and their survivors are already eligible for
veterans' benefits based on such service. Pursuant to authority granted
by section 401 of the GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977, Public Law 95-
202, the Secretary of Defense in 1988 certified merchant mariner
service in the oceangoing service between December 7, 1941, and August
15, 1945, as active military service for VA benefit purposes. As a
result, these merchant mariners are eligible for the same benefits as
other veterans of active service. This bill appears to contemplate
concurrent eligibility with benefits merchant mariners may already be
receiving from VA--a special privilege that is unavailable to other
veterans.
Second, there can be no doubt that merchant mariners were exposed
to many of the same rigors and risks of service as those confronted by
members of the Navy and the Coast Guard during World War II. However,
the universal nature and the amount of the benefit this bill would
provide for individuals with qualifying service are difficult to
reconcile with the benefits VA currently pays to other veterans. S. 961
would create what is essentially a service pension for a particular
class of individuals based on no eligibility requirement other than a
valid certificate of honorable service from the Department of
Transportation or the DOD. Further, this bill would authorize payment
to a merchant mariner, simply based on qualifying service, of a benefit
greater than the benefit currently payable to a veteran for a service-
connected disability rated as 60-percent disabling. Because the same
amount would be paid to surviving spouses under this bill, there would
be a similar disparity in favor of this benefit in comparison to the
basic rate of DIC for surviving spouses provided under chapter 13 of
title 38, United States Code.
VA estimates that enactment of S. 961 would result in a total
additional benefit cost of approximately $234.1 million in the first
fiscal year and an additional benefit cost of $1.4 billion over 10
years. We also estimate that additional administrative costs associated
with the need for more employees to process claims for the new monetary
benefit would be $893,000 during the first fiscal year and $6 million
over 10 years.
s. 1096
VA's opinion on the various sections of this bill follow. Whenever
VA supports or does not object to a particular section of the bill, it
is subject to Congress' enactment of legislation offsetting the
increased costs associated with the enactment of the new authority.
Section 2 of S. 1096, the ``Veterans' Housing Benefits Enhancement
Act of 2007,'' would make certain members of the Armed Forces eligible
to receive grants for home improvements and structural alterations
(HISA) that are needed for the continuation of treatment or to provide
access to the home or to essential lavatory and sanitary facilities.
The cost of such improvement and alterations would be subject to the
statutory dollar limits set forth in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1717(a)(2)(A) and
(B). Section 2 would extend eligibility for HISA grants to
servicemembers: (1) who the Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines
have a total disability permanent in nature incurred or aggravated in
the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service; (2) who
are receiving outpatient medical care, services, or treatment for that
disability; and (3) who are likely to be discharged or released from
the Armed Forces for that disability, as determined by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs.
These grants would be one-time grants. If a covered servicemember
uses the HISA grant for a home located near his or her military duty
station, that individual would not qualify for another grant if he or
she relocates for any purpose after discharge or release from service.
VA has no objection to section 2.
Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2101, VA may provide Specially Adapted
Housing (SAH) assistance to eligible veterans and active duty
servicemembers who suffer from certain permanent and total service-
connected disabilities. Section 3 of this bill would add ``severe burn
injuries'' to the types of specified disabilities and would allow VA to
determine what criteria constitute such a burn injury. VA favors
enactment of this provision, but points out that as written it would
exclude active duty servicemembers as eligible recipients. Therefore,
VA recommends that the Committee amend the bill to revise existing
section 2101(c) to ensure that otherwise eligible active duty
servicemembers are not excluded from this important benefit.
VA also recognizes that many burns, regardless of the severity or
extent of the injury, may not be considered ``permanent and total''
but, nevertheless, may require years of special care and convalescence.
As such, VA recommends that section 2101 be amended so that severe burn
injuries are excepted from the permanent and total disability
requirement for SAH assistance.
VA currently cannot project costs for section 3 because the number
of qualifying severely burned servicemembers is unknown. We do know
from DOD data (April 2003-April 2005) that burns constitute 5 percent
of all Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom combat-
related injuries, with an average total burned body surface area of 22
percent. However, we do not know the extent to which such burn victims
would qualify under section 3 of S. 1096.
Section 4 would require VA to report to Congress about existing
authorities for SAH assistance for disabled veterans. The report would
focus on veterans who have disabilities not already described in 38
U.S.C. Sec. 2101 and would be submitted to the Committees on Veterans'
Affairs in the Senate and House of Representatives no later than
December 31, 2007. VA does not oppose this provision, but the Committee
may prefer to revise subsection (a)(2) of this section by changing the
``or'' after the semicolon to ``and'', to clarify that the Committees
would like a report on all items specified. VA also recommends that the
Committee clarify whether VA should include in the report data on
active duty servicemembers.
Under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3901(1), VA may provide automobile and
adaptive equipment to eligible veterans and active duty servicemembers.
Section 5 of S. 1096 would add ``severe burn injuries'' to the existing
list of enumerated qualifying injuries and would require VA to
promulgate necessary implementing regulations. VA favors enactment of
this provision, subject to Congress' enactment of legislation
offsetting the benefits cost of such enactment.
VA currently cannot project costs for section 5 because the number
of qualifying severely burned servicemembers is unknown. As indicated
above, we do know some information about burn injuries. However, we do
not know the extent to which such burn victims would qualify under
section 5 of S. 1096. We presume the number would be small and note
that the average cost of adaptive equipment is approximately $4,000.
Section 6 would expand the categories of persons eligible for SAH
assistance provided under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2102A to include certain
members of the Armed Forces residing temporarily with family members.
Until recently, VA was not authorized to provide either a veteran or an
active duty servicemember with SAH assistance if the veteran or active
duty servicemember intended to reside temporarily with a family member.
This changed, in part, with the enactment of Public Law 109-233, which
made veterans eligible for such assistance. Yet, Public Law 109-233 did
not include active duty servicemembers as eligible recipients. VA
supports the objective of this section, which is to grant similar
assistance to active duty servicemembers. However, VA cannot support
this section as currently drafted because it would create a
definitional conflict in the statute that could potentially create
different classes of active duty servicemembers eligible for SAH
assistance. Section 6 also would require VA to report on assistance for
disabled veterans and members of the Armed Forces who reside in housing
owned by a family member on a permanent basis. The report would need to
be submitted to the Committees on Veterans Affairs in the Senate and
House of Representatives no later than December 31, 2007. VA is not
opposed to this provision.
s. 1163
Section 2 of S. 1163, the ``Blinded Veterans Paired Organ Act of
2007,'' would liberalize the eligibility for compensation and SAH
benefits for veterans in certain cases of impairment of vision
involving both eyes. Under current law (38 U.S.C. Sec. 1160(a)), a
veteran with service-connected blindness in one eye and nonservice-
connected blindness in the other eye may be compensated as though the
combination of both disabilities were service connected. Section 2(a)
would replace the entitlement requirement of ``blindness'' with
impairment of vision in each eye of visual acuity of 20/200 or less or
of a peripheral field of vision of 20 degrees or less (the definition
of ``legal blindness'' adopted by all 50 states and the Social Security
Administration (SSA)). Also, under current law (38 U.S.C.
Sec. 2101(b)), a veteran entitled to compensation for ``permanent and
total service-connected disability'' due to blindness in both eyes with
5/200 visual acuity or less is entitled to SAH assistance. Section 2(b)
would replace the entitlement requirement of ``blindness . . . with 5/
200 visual acuity or less'' with a requirement of visual acuity of 20/
200 or less or of a peripheral field of vision of 20 degrees or less.
Subject to Congress' enactment of legislation offsetting the
increased costs associated with the enactment of the provision, VA
supports the amendment that would be made by section 2(a) because it
would treat visual impairment in both eyes similarly to the way hearing
loss in both ears is treated under current law. The amendment would be
consistent with a prior amendment to section 1160(a) pertaining to
special consideration for hearing loss in both ears. Before that
amendment, a veteran with service-connected total deafness in one ear
and nonservice-connected total deafness in the other ear could be
compensated as though the combination of both disabilities were service
connected. In 2002, section 103 of Public Law 107-330 amended section
1160(a)(3) to replace the requirement of ``total deafness'' with
``deafness compensable to a degree of 10 percent or more'' for the
service-connected impairment and ``deafness'' for the nonservice-
connected hearing loss.
However, VA opposes the amendment that would be made by section
2(b) of S. 1163, primarily because it would treat visual impairment
differently from the other disability that warrants SAH assistance
under section 2101(b). The other disability that warrants such
assistance is anatomical loss or loss of use of both hands. Not only do
anatomical loss and loss of use of both hands warrant a higher
schedular rating than the degree of visual impairment that section 2(b)
would substitute for the current criterion of blindness, they also
warrant special monthly compensation. Furthermore, section 2(b) would
create an inconsistency in the requirements for SAH assistance under
section 2101(b)(2). The overriding requirement for assistance is that a
veteran have a ``permanent and total'' service connected disability of
the specified nature. Visual acuity of 20/200 or less or a peripheral
field of vision of 20 degrees or less, even when present in both eyes,
does not warrant a total disability rating.
VA estimates that enactment of section 2(a) of S. 1163 would result
in a benefit cost of $893,000 in the first year and $11.4 million over
10 years. VA estimates that enactment of section 2(b) would result in a
benefit cost of $480,000 for 48 new SAH grants in the first year. The
cost of additional SAH grants is less than $500,000 annually and is
therefore insignificant. There are no administrative costs associated
with these provisions.
Section 3 of S. 1163 would require the use of the National
Directory of New Hires (NDNH) for income-verification purposes for
certain veterans benefits. It would require the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) to compare information provided by VA on
individuals under 65 years of age who are applicants for or recipients
of VA pension benefits (under chapter 15 of title 38, United States
Code), parents' DIC benefits (under section 1315 of title 38, United
States Code), health-care services (under section 1710(a)(2)(G),
(a)(3), and (b) of title 38, United States Code), and compensation paid
at the rate of 100 percent based solely on unemployability (under
chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code) with information in the
NDNH and disclose information in that directory to VA solely for the
purpose of determining an individual's eligibility for such benefits or
the amount of such benefits to which the individual is entitled if the
individual is under 65 years old. VA would be required to reimburse HHS
for the costs incurred by HHS in providing this information. VA would
be responsible for providing notice to applicants for or recipients of
VA benefits whose information is being disclosed and for independently
verifying information relating to employment and income from employment
if VA terminates, denies, suspends, or reduces any benefit or service
as a result of information obtained from HHS. Furthermore, an
individual would have the opportunity to contest any findings made by
VA when verifying the information. VA's expenses related to use of this
directory for income-verification purposes would be paid from amounts
available for the payment of VA compensation and pension. The authority
for the income verification would expire on September 30, 2012.
The NDNH, which was established as part of the Federal Parent
Locator Service by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 653, provides a national directory of
employment, wage, and unemployment compensation information to
facilitate employment and income verification. Under 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 653a(g)(2), State Directories of New Hires are required to furnish
information regarding newly hired employees within 3 business days
after the date information is entered into the State Directory of New
Hires. In addition, it requires that, on a quarterly basis, State
Directories of New Hires must furnish to the NDNH information
concerning the wages and unemployment compensation paid to individuals.
The Privacy Act allows agencies to disclose records maintained in
systems of records to other agencies pursuant to computer data matching
programs authorized by law. All computer data matching programs must be
formalized by a written agreement that specifies, among other things,
the justification for the program and the anticipated results,
including a specific estimate of any savings.
As currently drafted, section 3 of this bill would make the data
match between VA and HHS mandatory, except to the extent that HHS
determined that it would interfere with the effective operation of part
D of title IV of the Social Security Act, ``Child Support and
Establishment of Paternity.'' Accordingly, section 3 could conceivably
require VA to enter a computer data matching program for which little
or no justification exists and for which costs savings are unlikely.
The decision to enter into a computer matching agreement under section
3 should be within the sound discretion of VA, instead of a mandatory
requirement. In addition, any administrative expenses associated with
data matching should be paid from VA discretionary administration
accounts and not from mandatory entitlement accounts.
VA currently matches data with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
and the SSA. As a result of these matches, VA obtains unearned and
earned income data concerning its needs-based applicants and
beneficiaries. VA's authority to use the NDNH for VA health-care
services would not substantially improve the current income
verification activities of VHA. It would add an interim match step into
the current process VHA has established for income matching, which
would not be definitive for the majority of veterans for whom matching
is required. While the data may be more current than existing match
data from the IRS and SSA, it is not a comprehensive income reporting
source, particularly since it does not include unearned income. VA
believes that the cost of adding such a match to the income
verification business process and information and technology support
systems is unlikely to be recouped by any substantial gain to the
Government from integrating such a match into the income verification
process. VA does not support enactment of section 3 as it applies to VA
health-care services because VA believes it is unnecessary.
VA's authority to use the NDNH to determine eligibility for certain
other VA monetary benefits or the amount of such benefits for
individuals under 65 years of age would have limited benefit with
respect to eligibility determinations for pension benefits and parents'
DIC and continued eligibility for individual unemployability benefits.
Although eligibility for pension and parents' DIC depends on income,
currently available statistics show minimal overpayments due to new
employment. Furthermore, the average age of recipients of pension and
parents' DIC is more than 65 years, and the only other source of income
for most individuals who receive pension is Social Security benefits.
In addition, with respect to continued eligibility for individual
unemployability, regulations require a showing of sustained employment
before adjusting individual unemployability awards. Thus, the utility
of income verification for individuals receiving individual
unemployability is not as great.
VA's authority to use the NDNH would result in an additional
expense for VA, and we believe that the cost of using the NDNH is
unlikely to be recouped by any gain that might result from eligibility
determinations with respect to pension benefits and parents' DIC, and
continued eligibility for individual unemployability benefits. However,
significant savings could be realized from use of the NDNH data base as
an initial screening tool to make initial eligibility determinations
for individual unemployability. Through its matches with SSA and IRS,
VA has discovered cases where individual unemployability was awarded
based on incorrect data furnished by the applicant. Because the NDNH
data is more up-to-date, VA might discover some errors through the NDNH
match up to 3 years earlier than it would have discovered the error if
it relied on SSA and IRS matches.
VA estimates that enactment of section 3 of S. 1163 would result in
a cost to reimburse HHS for comparing our income data with data from
the NDNH of $1 million in the first year and $4 million over 5 years,
after which time the agreement would expire. VA also estimates that
section 3 would result in benefit savings of $940,000 in the first year
and $16.7 million over 10 years, resulting in an overall savings of
$12.7 million. There are no other administrative costs associated with
this provision.
s. 1215
Section 1 of S. 1215 would authorize reimbursement from VA's
readjustment benefits account to state approving agencies (SAAs) for
certain expenses incurred in the administration of VA education benefit
programs, not to exceed $19 million in any year. The current funding
amount is $19 million for Fiscal Year 2007. However, that amount would
revert to $13 million in Fiscal Year 2008 and subsequent fiscal years
without legislative intervention.
VA, consistent with a recent Government Accountability Office
recommendation, is taking steps to coordinate its approval activities
with other agencies and is considering ways to streamline the approval
process. Regardless of any such activities, we anticipate that funding
at the reduced level would cause SAAs to reduce staffing
proportionately, severely curtail travel and outreach activities, and
perform fewer approval/supervisory duties under their VA contracts.
Some SAAs might decline to contract with VA altogether, requiring that
VA employees assume their duties.
We have been asked to disregard section 2 of this bill.
Section 3 of S. 1215 would permit DOL to waive the current
requirement that state Veterans' Employment and Training directors be
residents of the state in which they serve for at least 2 years prior
to their appointment if the waiver is in the public interest. VA defers
to the DOL on this portion of the bill since it is within that
Department's subject matter jurisdiction.
Section 4 of S. 1215 would modify the requirements for the biennial
study by DOL of unemployment among certain veterans to include those
who served during and after the Global War on Terror. Studies of these
groups would be completed in place of the associated studies for
Vietnam era veterans and in addition to those of the other veteran
populations also identified for the study. VA also defers to DOL on
this portion of the bill since it is within that Department's subject
matter jurisdiction.
Section 5 would temporarily continue the 10-percentage-point
increase (authorized under section 103 of Public Law 108-454; 118 Stat.
3600) of the monthly educational assistance allowance payable for an
individual pursuing apprenticeship or other on-job training at the
full-time program rate under the Montgomery GI Bill or Active Duty and
Selected Reserve programs (chapter 30 of title 38 and chapter 1606 of
title 10, United States Code, respectively) and the chapter 32 Post-
Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance program. It would also
continue the increase in the educational assistance allowance for such
training under chapter 35 of title 38, United States Code (currently,
for the first 6 months of training, $676; for the second 6 months of
training, $527; and for the third 6 months of training, $380). This
amendment would be effective for months beginning on or after January
1, 2008, and before January 1, 2010.
If enacted, VA estimates S. 1215 would cost $6 million in Fiscal
Year 2008, approximately $44 million for the first 5 years and $740
million over the 10-year period from Fiscal Years 2008 through 2017.
Subject to Congress' enactment of legislation offsetting the
increased benefits costs of S. 1215, VA has no objection to the
enactment of this bill.
s. 1265
Current law provides eligibility for mortgage life insurance to
certain disabled veterans who have been granted assistance in obtaining
SAH. S. 1265 would extend this eligibility to members of the Armed
Forces who meet the same eligibility criteria.
Subject to Congress' enactment of legislation offsetting the
increased costs associated with the enactment of the new authority, VA
supports the enactment of this bill because it would correct an
oversight made when eligibility for SAH was extended to members of the
Armed Forces. Mortgage life insurance was available for veterans
receiving SAH assistance but was not available to the newly eligible
Armed Forces members. This bill would rectify that disparity.
VA estimates that enactment of this bill would cost $431,170 over 5
years.
draft bill
To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a program of
educational assistance for members of the Armed Forces who
serve in the Armed Forces after September 11, 2001, and for
other purposes.
This draft bill, the ``Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance
Act of 2007,'' would add a new chapter 33 to title 38, United States
Code, that would, in general, require that, to be eligible for
educational assistance under the new chapter 33 program, an individual
must serve at least 2 years of active duty with a least some period of
active duty time served beginning on or after September 11, 2001. It
would, for most individuals, link the number of months of educational
assistance benefit to the individual's months of service after
September 11, 2001, but, in general, not provide for more than 36
months of benefits, with the educational assistance to cover the
established charges of the program of education, room and board, and a
monthly stipend of $1,000. Chapter 33 would provide for educational
assistance for less-than-half time education, apprenticeships, on-job
training, correspondence courses, and flight training. Chapter 33 also
would provide payment for tutorial assistance, not to exceed $100 per
month for a maximum of 12 months, and one licensing or certification
test, not to exceed the lesser of $2,000 or the test fee. Generally,
individuals would have 15 years to use their educational entitlement
beginning on the date of their last discharge or release from active
duty. VA would administer this program with payments of assistance made
from funds made available to VA for the payment of readjustment
benefits. In general, individuals eligible for benefits under chapter
30 of title 38, United States Code, or chapters 107, 1606, or 1607 of
title 10, United States Code, could irrevocably elect, instead, to
receive educational assistance under chapter 33.
We have serious concerns about certain provisions of the ``Post-9/
11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007'' and therefore oppose
it. The complexity of eligibility rules, anticipated cost, and
administrative burden associated with this bill are all problematic.
As currently written, eligibility criteria for the proposed chapter
33 are more complex than the current GI Bill. Entitlement
determinations factoring in length of service and previous benefit
usage would also be highly complex and difficult for individuals to
fully understand.
The increased amount of benefits payable at varying levels for
different institutions would make administration of this program
cumbersome. The requirement that the benefit be paid at the beginning
of the term would further complicate administration and would tax
existing VA resources. Section 3313(j)(2) would require VA to annually
determine which public schools in each state have the highest in-state
tuition rate and set the established charges for each state
accordingly. This labor-intensive process would need to be completed
annually in sufficient time to prepare for issuance of payments in
advance of the term. Further, as written, this bill would be effective
the date of enactment. It would be necessary to prescribe regulations,
make systems changes, and make other key adjustments to support the
components of this bill. It is also likely that other sections within
title 38, United States Code, may need to be amended to address
overpayment of the monthly stipend. For the above reasons, it is not
feasible for VA to begin making payments under the proposed chapter 33
benefit immediately.
It also appears that, if enacted, the bill might have some
unintended consequences. For example, the subsistence payment of $1,000
per month would be payable to individuals attending degree and non-
degree programs and those who are completing internships and on-the-job
training programs. This seems inequitable, as it would treat an
individual in an apprenticeship program who is earning wages the same
as a college student who is incurring expenses. It is also unclear what
effect this benefit would have on recruiting and retention. While we
defer to DOD on this matter, we acknowledge that this may lead to lower
reenlistments.
If enacted, VA estimates that the ``Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
Assistance Act of 2007'' would result in benefit costs of $5.4 billion
during Fiscal Year 2008, $32.2 billion for Fiscal Years 2008 through
2012, and $74.7 billion over the 10-year period from Fiscal Years 2008
through 2017.
Significant administrative costs would also be incurred. As
previously noted, section 3313(j)(2) would require VA to annually
determine which public schools in each state have the highest in-state
tuition rate and set the established charges for each state
accordingly. This labor-intensive process would need to be completed
annually in sufficient time to prepare for issuance of payments in
advance of the term.
Further, since VA's obligation is to ensure that veterans and
servicemembers receive the most advantageous benefit, VA would be
obligated to reevaluate all existing claims and award the greater
chapter 33 benefits, as appropriate. The initial year of the program
would require VA to double our current Education FTE in an attempt to
meet the workload increase. Extensive system changes would be needed to
make lump sum payments to all beneficiaries before the start of the
term. VA also would need to develop technological system changes to
account for the payment rate variations from state to state. This would
be problematic because VA is in the midst of changing from one payment
system (Benefits Delivery Network) to another (Veterans Services
Network).
Based on these factors, we would anticipate substantial
administrative costs, but cannot fully estimate them without further
research.
VA does not have comments on the other bills included on the agenda
for today's hearing because it did not receive them in time to develop
and clear views and estimate costs.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy now to
entertain any questions you or the other Members of the Committee may
have.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Patty Murray
to Hon. Daniel L. Cooper, Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of
Veterans Affairs
Question. In 2004, a report by the Research Advisory Comittee on
Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, a group created by Congress and appointed
by Secretary Principi back in 2002, recommended to the VA that they
conduct a study on the prevalence of MS in Gulf War. Has that been
done?
Response. The Veterans Health Administration's Office of Research
and Development (ORD) is currently funding a project by Dr. Han Kang
and has approved a second project for funding by Dr. Mitchell Wallin.
Study 1. Dr. Kang is conducting a mortality follow-up study of
621,000 Gulf War veterans and 750,000 non-Gulf War veterans. It is
designed to address the risk of deaths due to neurologic diseases,
including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and MS. The ALS and MS
deaths reported on the death certificates are being validated by a
review of medical records of the decedents. These two Gulf War era
veteran cohorts can also be compared to the U.S. male population
adjusted for age, race and calendar period of deaths to determine
whether or not veterans in general (1.37 million Gulf and non-Gulf
veterans combined) or those who were deployed to Gulf War (621,000
veterans) specifically are at a higher risk of ALS or MS deaths.
Study 2. Another study, led by Dr. Wallin has been approved for
funding by ORO and is entitled ``Multiple Sclerosis in Gulf War
Veterans.'' The goal of this study is to evaluate the risk of
developing MS in GW veterans. To our knowledge, no controlled studies
on this topic exist. Using a large, cohort of veterans service-
connected for MS, it seeks to determine if military service in the GW
theater increased the risk for MS in deployed compared with non-
deployed GW veterans.
There are also ALS and MS registries within VHA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Important Data
Office Managing Purpose Veterans Type of Veterans Elements Data Source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALS Registry..................... Epidemiologic Identify and 1,602 Diagnoses of ALS Healthcare Extracted from
Research and characterize within VA utilization, ALS existing VA files
Information Center, veterans with ALS, healthcare system Functional Rating and self
Durham, NC. data source for and self-referrals. Scale Every six referrals.
future studies. months.
MS Registry...................... MS Center of Identify and 31,946 Diagnoses of MS Healthcare Extracted from
Excellence, East characterize within VA utilization, existing VA files.
Baltimore, MD & MS veterans with MS, healthcare system. Health Economics
Center of data source for data.
Excellence West, future studies.
Portland, OR and
Seattle, WA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD is funding research on ALS, which is directly applicable to
veterans. The following is a list of their studies (FY 2002 to FY
2007):
The Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program funded seven ALS projects
Title: Development of aptamers as anti-excitotoxic drugs for ALS
therapy; Location: City University of New York; Funding: $1.153
million.
Title: Prospective study of ALS mortality among World War II,
Korea, and Vietnam veterans; Location: Harvard University; Funding:
$1.528 million.
Title: Function of prostaglandin receptors in models of ALS;
Location: Johns Hopkins University; Funding: $1.260 million.
Title: Do Tau mutations increase susceptibility to ALS?; Location:
Duke University; Funding: $979,000.
Title: Biomarkers for ALS in active-duty military; Location:
University of Cincinnati; Funding: $1.001 million,
Title: Anti-apoptotic drugs for radioprotection; Location: Burnham
Institute; Funding: $1.001 million.
Title: Cytoprotective chemicals for ALS treatment and enhanced ALS
services and outcome studies; Location: Burnham Institute; Funding:
under negotiation (as of March 2007).
The Military Operational Medicine Program funded one ALS project
Title: Development of spinal drug delivery techniques and genomic
disease markers in a murine model of ALS; Location: ALS Therapy
Development Foundation; Funding: $1.856 million.
The Neurotoxin Exposure Treatment Research Program funded one ALS
project
Title: Implications of cycad neurotoxicity for ALS-Parkinson's
disease cluster; Location: University of British Columbia; Funding:
$806,000.
Lastly, in November 2006, Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a
report of a study entitled: ``Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis in
Veterans: Review of the Scientific Literature.'' The IOM committee
concluded that there are significant limitations in existing studies
that pertain to military and veteran populations but that ``there is
limited and suggestive evidence of an association between military
service and later development of ALS.''
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barack Obama
to Hon. Daniel L. Cooper, Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of
Veterans Affairs
Question 1. Lane Evans--Admiral Cooper, thank you for providing
feedback today on sections of S. 117, the Lane Evans Health and
Benefits Improvement Act. You stated in your testimony that much of the
data required under the reporting section of this measure are not
currently available. But, in my view, the new Information System
proposed in this bill would track some pretty basic items, such as the
veteran's age, race, home address, and military service.
Question 1(a). Could you specify which of these pieces of data the
VA is currently tracking and which ones are not available?
Response. The Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA) produces a
report on benefits usage by veterans deployed in support of the Global
War on Terror (GWOT). The current version of this report captures many
of the data points identified in the proposed legislation. A copy of
the latest report is attached. This report can be amended to include
additional data captured in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
records systems or made available to VA through our data exchange with
the Department of Defense (DOD).
Some of the information proposed to be tracked is not yet available
exactly as requested.
Information on Military Service: VA receives a file from
DOD identifying veterans deployed in support of GWOT. We use that file
to populate our reports. The file does not include the specific
conflict or country of service. We can provide the breakdown by branch
of service and can separate active duty veterans from members of the
National Guard and Reserves. However, we cannot currently separate
Reservists from National Guard members. We also cannot isolate which
conflict(s) a veteran served in (Operation Enduring Freedom and/or
Operation Iraqi Freedom, or neither), nor can we identify service in a
specific country. We do not receive deployment history, the grade and
rank of each veteran, or the number of evacuations. The deployment
history, even if it were available, would be extremely difficult to
align with claims for benefits.
Aggregate information: We currently do not have a method
for aggregating all benefits each individual veteran used and/or
applied for, though we are working toward a solution to this issue. We
can and do provide a listing of how many veterans have applied for and
received a particular benefit, but cannot yet summarize the benefits
applied for and received by each individual veteran.
Amount of compensation paid to veterans: While we track
benefit awards by disability percentage ratings, we do not currently
track average monthly compensation paid to GWOT veterans, nor do we
have a ready means available to do so. We are working on an approach to
providing this data.
DIC benefits: We do not currently report on claims
activity specifically for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC)
applicants, but we can do so with existing data.
Education benefits: We currently provide usage information
regarding the majority of education benefits.
Loan Guaranty benefits: We currently report on total loan
usage and total dollar amount for GWOT veterans. However, we do not
have a means of determining whether the usage was prior to or after a
veteran's deployment in support of GWOT. We are able to track the
number of disabled GWOT veterans found eligible for specially adapted
housing benefits.
[Note: The Veterans Benefit Administration's (VBA) current report
on benefits usage by veterans deployed in support of the Global War on
Terror (GWOT) follows:]
department of veterans affairs (va) benefits activity
veterans deployed to the global war on terror
october 2007 update
This report summarizes participation in VA benefits programs by
veterans identified by the Department of Defense as having been
deployed overseas in support of the Global War on Terror (GWOT).
Information is included for the following VA programs: Compensation,
Insurance, Home Loan Guaranty, Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment.
This update provides data on VA program participation for 754,911
GWOT veterans separated from military service through May 2007.
It is important to understand that because many GWOT veterans had
earlier periods of service, the benefits activity identified in this
report could have occurred either prior to or subsequent to their GWOT
deployment (or both).
Chart 1.-- GWOT Veterans by Branch of Service
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Active
Branch of Service Guard Duty Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force.............................. 80,932 58,660 139,592
Army................................... 255,907 148,847 404,754
Coast Guard............................ 317 497 814
Marine Corps........................... 27,735 65,853 93,588
Navy................................... 21,890 88,543 110,433
Other.................................. 4 14 18
Unknown................................ 2,141 1,880 4,021
Total matched to VA systems............ 388,926 364,294 753,220
Unable to match to VA systems.......... 877 814 1,691
--------------------------------
Total.............................. 389,803 365,108 754,911
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The veteran's branch of service was obtained from VA's BIRLS
system, which stores information for up to three periods of service.
The branch of service associated with the most recent service date was
used for the chart above.
Chart 2.--Gender of GWOT Veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Active
Gender Guard Duty Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Female................................. 40,674 41,410 82,084
Male................................... 345,210 319,955 665,165
Unknown................................ 3,042 2,929 5,971
Total matched to VA systems............ 388,926 364,294 753,220
Unable to match to VA systems.......... 877 814 1,691
--------------------------------
Total.............................. 389,803 365,108 754,911
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart 3.--Age of GWOT Veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Active
Age Group Guard Duty Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 20............................... 106 259 365
20-29.................................. 130,630 236,613 367,243
30-39.................................. 115,767 69,777 185,544
40-49.................................. 102,370 49,285 151,655
50-59.................................. 34,812 6,934 41,746
60-69.................................. 4,456 267 4,723
Unknown................................ 785 1,159 1,944
Total matched to VA systems............ 388,926 364,294 753,220
Unable to match to VA systems.......... 877 814 1,691
Total.............................. 389,803 365,108 754,911
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Veterans' ages are calculated as the number of whole years between
the date of birth in the BIRLS system. Any veteran with a missing or
invalid date of birth, or where the calculated age was under 17 years
or over 69 years, was placed in the ``Unknown'' age group.
Chart 4.--Average Age of GWOT Veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Guard Active Duty
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Age..................... 36.0 years........ 30.0 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart 5.--Average Length of Service for GWOT Veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Guard Active Duty
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Length of Service....... 3.7 years......... 7.6 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service-Connected Disability Compensation Program
The Veterans Benefit Administration's (VBA) computer systems do not
contain any data that would allow us to attribute veterans'
disabilities to a specific period of service or deployment. We are
therefore only able to identify GWOT veterans who filed a disability
compensation claim at some point either prior to or following their
GWOT deployment. We are not able to identify which of these veterans
filed a claim for disabilities incurred during their actual overseas
GWOT deployment.
Many veterans file disability compensation claims for more than one
condition. The table below provides information on individual GWOT
veterans, not specific claimed disabilities.
Individuals included in the category ``Veterans Awarded Service-
Connection'' are those veterans who have at least one condition that
meets eligibility requirements for service connection under VA statutes
and regulations. For veterans who filed a claim for more than one
condition, this category contains veterans with a full grant of all
conditions as well as veterans with a combination of disabilities
granted and denied.
If none of a GWOT veteran's claimed conditions meet eligibility
requirements under VA statutes and regulations, these individuals are
included in the category ``Veterans Denied Service-Connection.''
Chart 6.--Compensation & Pension (C&P) Activity Among GWOT Veterans
(Includes claims filed both prior to and following GWOT deployment)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserves Active
Category Guard Duty Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deployed Servicemembers................ 428,808 1,123,600 1,552,408
Total GWOT Veterans.................... 389,803 365,108 754,911
Living GWOT Veterans................... 389,038 362,235 751,273
GWOT In-Service Deaths................. 765 2,873 3,638
Total GWOT Veterans with Claims 71,282 127,240 198,522
Decisions.............................
Veterans Awarded Service-Connection.... 61,318 119,833 181,151
Veterans Receiving Compensation........ 46,988 103,657 150,645
Veterans Denied Service-Connection..... 9,964 7,407 17,371
Veterans with Pending Claims (as of 9- 16,445 18,603 35,048
30-07)................................
Veterans with Pending Reopened Claims.. 4,418 5,588 10,006
Pending from First-Time Claimants...... 12,027 13,015 25,042
Total GWOT Veterans Filing Disability 83,309 140,255 223,564
Claims \1\............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes ``Total GWOT Veterans with claims Decisions'' and ``Pending
from First-Time claimants.''
Disabilities are evaluated according to VA regulations, and the
extent of the disability is expressed as a percentage from zero percent
to 100 percent disabling, in increments of 10 percent. Veterans with
more than one service-connected disability receive a combined
disability rating.
The chart below includes GWOT veterans awarded combined service-
connected disability ratings from zero percent to 100 percent,
regardless of whether the veteran receives monetary compensation.
Chart 7.--GWOT Veterans Awarded Service-Connection
(by Combined Deqree of Disability)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserves
Combined Degree Guard Active Duty Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 percent........................ 11,653 14,800 26,453
10 percent....................... 15,807 23,207 39,014
20 percent....................... 8,669 17,311 25,980
30 percent....................... 6,730 17,052 23,782
40 percent....................... 5,850 15,085 20,935
50 percent....................... 3,127 8,935 12,062
60 percent....................... 3,477 9,573 13,050
70 percent....................... 2,219 5,853 8,072
80 percent....................... 1,556 3,947 5,503
90 percent....................... 688 1,548 2,236
100 percent...................... 1,542 2,522 4,064
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 61,318 119,833 181,151
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Includes corporate data. Previous reports included CPMR only.
Chart 8.--Ten Most Frequent Service-Connected Disabilities for GWOT
Veterans
(Both Active Duty and Reserve/Guard)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diagnostic
Code Diagnosis Description Count
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6260 Tinnitus..................................... 57,589
5237 Lumbosacral or cervical strain............... 50,699
6100 Defective hearing............................ 46,761
9411 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder............... 31,465
5260 Limitation of flexion of leg................. 26,563
5271 Limited motion of the ankle.................. 25,548
5299 Generalized, Elbow and Forearm, Wrist, 21,817
Multiple Fingers, Hip and Thigh, Knee and
Leg, Ankle, Foot, Spine, Skull, Ribs, Coccyx
5242 Degenerative arthritis of the spine.......... 19,588
7101 Hypertensive vascular disease (essential 18,654
arterial hypertension)......................
5201 Limitation of motion of the arm.............. 17,448
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Program Traumatic lnjury Benefit
Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) is a
traumatic injury protection rider under Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance (SGLI) that provides for payment to any member of the
uniformed services covered by SGLI who sustains a traumatic injury that
results in certain severe losses. Through September 30, 2007, 6,739
active duty servicemembers and veterans have applied for TSGLI. Of
those, 3,752 were filed by GWOT veterans, and 2,008 of those received
benefits.
Chart 9a.--GWOT Veterans Who Applied for TSGLI Benefits
(by Age)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Active
Age Group Guard Duty Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 20............................... -- 1 1
20-29.................................. 602 1,412 2,014
30-39.................................. 560 395 955
40-49.................................. 494 86 580
50-59.................................. 178 2 180
60-69.................................. 17 -- 17
Unknown................................ -- 5 5
--------------------------------
Total.............................. 1,851 1,901 3,752
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The totals above reflect veterans whose claims have been approved,
have been denied or are currently pending.
Chart 9b.--GWOT Veterans Who Received TSGLI Benefits
(by Age)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Active
Age Group Guard Duty Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 20............................... -- 1 1
20-29.................................. 326 948 1,274
30-39.................................. 240 262 502
40-49.................................. 136 52 188
50-59.................................. 39 -- 39
60-69.................................. 1 -- 1
Unknown................................ -- 3 3
--------------------------------
Total.............................. 742 1,266 2,008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart 1Oa.--GWOT Veterans Who Applied for TSGLI Benefits
(by Gender)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Active
Gender Guard Duty Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Female................................. 98 48 146
Male................................... 1,745 1,846 3,591
Unknown................................ 8 7 15
--------------------------------
Total.............................. 1,851 1,901 3,752
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The totals above reflect veterans whose claims have been approved,
have been denied or are currently pending.
Chart 1Ob.--GWOT Veterans Who Recieved TSGLI Benefits
(by Gender)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Active
Gender Guard Duty Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Female................................. 25 29 54
Male................................... 715 1,232 1,947
Unknown................................ 2 5 7
--------------------------------
Total.............................. 742 1,266 2,008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Loan Guaranty Program
VA's home loan guaranty program has been helping veterans purchase
homes for more than 60 years. VA guaranteed home loans are made by
banks and mortgage companies to veterans, servicemembers and eligible
reservists. With VA backing a portion of the loan, veterans can receive
a competitive interest rate without a downpayment, making it easier to
buy a home.
This benefit can be used more than once if needed to (1) refinance
an existing VA guaranteed loan at a lower interest rate or (2) to
purchase a home that will again be used as the person's primary
residence (eligible to do this normally after paying off any previous
loans).
Chart 11.--Home Loan Guaranty Program Participation by GWOT Veterans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Guard Active Duty Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWOT Veterans with VA Loan................................ 100,190 73,588 173,778
Total Loans Made to GWOT Veterans......................... 154,730 108,826 263,556
Dollar Amount of All Loans to GWOT Veterans............... $17,502,831,170 $13,571,983,255 $31,074,814,425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education Programs
The chart below reflects participation by GWOT veterans in VA
education benefit programs since September 11, 2001. Participants may
have been entitled to more than one benefit. For example, a reservist
may have received Chapter 1606 benefits until he or she became eligible
to receive Chapter 1607 benefits. This participant would be reported in
both columns in the chart below.
Chart 12.--Education Program Participation Among GWOT Veterans Since
September 11, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter Chapter Chapter
Type of Training 30 1606 1607 Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduate.................... 6,509 5,867 3,292 15,668
Undergraduate............... 59,894 71,796 22,443 154,133
Junior College.............. 73,355 47,657 12,111 133,123
NCD......................... 17,213 6,920 2,426 26,559
Total................... 156,971 132,240 40,272 329,483
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery GI Bill Active-Duty (Chapter 30) provides up to 36
months of education benefits for degree and certificate programs,
flight training, apprenticeship/on-the-job training, and correspondence
courses. Generally, benefits are payable for 10 years following release
from active duty.
Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve (Chapter 1606) provides up to
36 months of education benefits to members of the Reserve elements of
the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, and members
of the Army National Guard, and the Air National Guard. This benefit
may be used for degree and certificate programs, flight training,
apprenticeship/on-the-job training, and correspondence courses.
Benefits generally end the day a member separates from the Selected
Reserve or National Guard. For those who are activated, eligibility is
extended beyond separation for a period of time equal to time served on
active duty plus 4 months.
Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) (Chapter 1607)
provides educational assistance to members of the Reserve components
called or ordered to active duty in response to a war or national
emergency as declared by the President or Congress. This new program
makes certain reservists who were activated for at least 90 days after
September 11, 2001, eligible for education benefits or eligible for
increased benefits.
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Program (Chapter 31)
Chart 13.--VR&E Activity Among GWOT Veterans
(Includes participation either prior to and following GWOT deployment)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Active
Current Case Status Guard Duty Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant.............................. 375 830 1,205
Employment Services.................... 134 367 501
Evaluation and Planning................ 1,018 2,263 3,281
Extended Evaluation.................... 165 352 517
Independent Living..................... 45 57 102
Interrupted............................ 253 667 920
Rehabilitation to Employability........ 1,938 5,876 7,814
Unknown................................ 85 23 108
--------------------------------
Current Participants............... 4,013 10,435 14,448
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehabilitated.......................... 688 730 1,418
Discontinued........................... 287 292 579
--------------------------------
Total VR&E Participants........ 4,988 11,457 16,445
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant: A veteran's case is assigned to applicant status when
the VA receives an application (VAF-1900) for services under Chapter
31.
Evaluation and Planning: Determination of feasibility of a
vocational goal and/or evaluation of the veteran's ability to function
independently within the veteran's family and community.
Extended Evaluation: Determine the current feasibility of the
veteran with a serious employment handicap to achieve a vocational
goal.
Rehabilitation to Employability: Services and training necessary
for entry into employment in an identified suitable occupational
objective.
Independent Living Program: Services that are needed to enable a
veteran to achieve maximum independence in daily living, including home
accommodations, counseling, and educational services, as determined
necessary.
Employment Services: Services to assist in obtaining and/or
maintaining suitable employment.
Rehabilitated: The goals of a rehabilitation/employment/independent
living program have been substantially achieved.
Interrupted: Temporary suspension of the program warranted due to a
veteran's individual circumstances.
Discontinued: All services and benefits are terminated.
Serious Employment Handicap: A significant impairment of a
veteran's ability to prepare for, obtain, or maintain employment, as
determined by a VA counselor.
Sources
DOD
Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) East, cumulative count
of servicemembers deployed to OEF/OIF from September 11, 2001 through
May 2007.
DMDC West, extract of OEF/OIF servicemembers discharged to
civilian status from September 2001 through May 2007.
The DMDC list of 754,911 deployed GWOT veterans represents
49 percent of the cumulative deployed GWOT servicemember population of
1,552,408 through May 2007.
VBA
Beneficiary Identification and Records Locator Subsystem
(BIRLS), as of the end of the month September 2007.
Compensation and Pension Master Record (CPMR), active
records (``A'' type) as of the end of the month September 2007.
CPMR, terminated records (``E'' type) as of the end of the
month June 2007.
Corporate records as of September 30, 2007.
Pending Issue File (PIF), as of the close of business on
September 29, 2007.
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service Chapter
31 file, as of the end of the month September 2007.
Loan Guaranty data, as of October 4, 2007.
TSGLI file, as of September 30, 2007.
Education Service data, as of the end of September 2007.
Questions
Questions may be referred to the Office of Performance Analysis and
Integrity at (202) 461-9040.
Question 1(b). What is the current protocol for producing such
aggregated information when requested by Congress?
Response. VA will provide all available information whenever
requested by a Member of Congress.
Question 2. Bonuses Issue--I thank Chairman Akaka for his
leadership on requesting Secretary Nicholson to provide further
thoughts on last year's bonus awards paid to senior personnel at the
VA. His staff's analysis of these bonuses showed that they appeared to
be distributed unevenly and in some cases rewarded questionable
performance, for example performance that led to the serious budget
shortfalls in 2005. What do you think are fair criteria to apply when
considering bonus awards for senior staff at the VA?
Response. VA bonus process is based on meaningful performance
measures established each year and reviewed by the Deputy Secretary of
VA on a monthly basis. These monthly reviews enable VA to monitor its
organizational performance and determine appropriate recognition for
the senior executives.
Each senior executive has a performance plan with objective and
quantifiable measures that are tied to organizational performance, and
their performance is evaluated against these criteria. Supervisors make
recommendations on employees' performance awards (bonuses). These
recommendations are forwarded to the performance review board (PRB) for
further evaluation. The PRB is responsible for ensuring that bonuses
recommended for senior executives are based on individual and
organizational performance.
The Government Accountability Office and Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) recently conducted reviews on VA's senior executive
service performance management system. These reviews indicated that
VA's system complied with all statutory and regulatory requirements and
was comparable to that used in most Cabinet-level Departments. OPM made
several recommendations to improve the process and VA has accepted
these recommendations and is implementing them. These initiatives will
strengthen VA's ability to set challenging, measurable performance
standards, evaluate performance against these standards, and provide
meaningful and appropriate recognition.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Johnny Isakson
to Hon. Daniel L. Cooper, Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of
Veterans Affairs
Question. The eArmyU, a Web-based curriculum, is that completely up
and operational now and integrated with the VA education benefits?
Response. VA Education Benefits and integration with eArmyU. The
eArmyU program is an Army variation on Tuition Assistance. EArmyU is an
entirely online degree program developed by the Army in July 2000. This
program enables members to complete degree requirements using a laptop
computer in their spare time. The eArmyU program provides the member
with 100 percent Tuition Assistance and has the same limits as the
Army's traditional Tuition Assistance Program. A member can utilize the
VA tuition top-up and assistance program to supplement their eArmyU
benefits once limits within that program are reached.
tuition assistance top-up
In addition to the increase in Tuition Assistance limits, Public
Law 106-398 revised chapter 30 to permit VA to issue payment to an
individual for all or any portion of the difference between the Tuition
Assistance amount paid by the military component and the total cost of
tuition and related charges. This provision is called Tuition
Assistance Top-up. Top-up is available only to persons eligible for
chapter 30. A person who is eligible to receive chapter 30 who is
receiving Tuition Assistance from a Reserve or National Guard
component, is eligible for Top-up.
Question 2. Does visual acuity of 20/200 or less, or a peripheral
field of 20 degrees or less, constitute permanent and total disability
in the Social Security Administration?
Response. While we believe you should request a definitive response
from the Social Security Administration (SSA), based upon our review of
the governing regulations we believe visual acuity of 20/200 or less,
or a peripheral field of 20 degrees or less constitutes permanent and
total disability for SSA. SSA defines disability as the ``inability to
engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to
result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a
continuous period of not less than 12 months. . . .'' (Social Security
Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(d)). SSA pays only for total disability; it
does not offer partial or short-term disability benefits.
SSA defines statutory blindness in sections 216(i)(1) and
1614(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (the Act), as visual acuity of
20/200 or less in the better eye with the use of a correcting lens. SSA
uses the individual's best-corrected visual acuity for distance in the
better eye when determining if this definition is met. The Act also
provides that an eye that has a visual field limitation such that the
widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than
20 degrees is considered as having visual acuity of 20/200 or less.
Under the SSA's method for evaluating disability, there is a
listing of impairments which describes conditions that are considered
severe enough to prevent an adult from performing any gainful activity
(or would cause a child under the age of 18 to experience marked and
severe functional limitations). Visual acuity of 20/200 or less meets
the criteria in the listing of impairments under 2.02, loss of visual
acuity, where the remaining vision in the better eye after best
correction must be 20/200 or less. In addition, a peripheral field of
20 degrees or less meets the criteria under 2.03A; requiring
contraction of visual field in the better eye with the widest diameter
subtending an angle around the point of fixation no greater than 20
degrees.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Admiral.
I see that our distinguished Member from Washington State
is here, Senator Cantwell. Welcome, and may I ask her to come
to the table and make a few remarks on legislation that she has
introduced. So aloha, welcome, and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
this opportunity to testify before the Committee. Good morning
to all my colleagues, particularly to my senior Senator,
Senator Murray, who we are so proud of for her service on this
Committee and her leadership on veterans issues. It is good to
see my other colleague from the Northwest, Senator Craig, who
also has been very vocal on veterans issues.
I would like to begin by just talking specifically about my
legislation, the Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007, which
is S. 1261, and as I said, I would like to thank my colleagues
who have already sponsored this legislation, Senator Murray and
Senator Brown of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and my other
colleagues in the Senate.
For more than 60 years, the GI Bill has opened doors to
higher education for millions of servicemembers and veterans
who wouldn't otherwise have a chance to go to college, and the
GI Bill has provided our country with over 450,000 engineers,
238,000 teachers, and 91,000 scientists. In fact, just to note,
in the last several years, the inventor of the silicon chip
passed away and I read in his obituary that he also had gone to
school on the GI Bill and I thought, what an incredible
contribution that he made.
The GI Bill has a tremendous impact, not only in helping
veterans go back to school, but transforming America's middle
class. The GI Bill has been an important tool in the soldier's
transition from military service to civilian life. Now in the
21st century, an environment in which enhanced skills,
education, and job training are all critical to employment, we
must ensure that veterans always have an open door to
education.
It is clear that it is time to modernize the GI Bill to
better fit the needs of today's soldiers. According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, by 2010, 40 percent of job growth
will require some form of post-secondary education. Keeping
America's workforce highly skilled and competitive in today's
global economy means increasing education opportunities and
guaranteeing our troops receive the education benefits they
have earned.
The GI Bill provides up to 36 months of college benefits
for technical or vocational courses and a host of other
training and apprentice programs. To enroll, servicemembers
agree, obviously, to a $100 a month reduction in their pay for
the first 12 months of service. That is a total of $1,200
active duty servicemembers must contribute to this program. And
even though that $1,200 buy-in is non-refundable, active duty
participants only have 10 years from the day that they leave
the military to use this to advance their education and
training. For the Guard and Reserves, they do have a little
longer period of time of 14 years.
The Government Accountability Office reported in 1999 that
96 percent of all active duty enlistees enroll in the GI Bill.
However, only 57 percent of these enlistees took advantage of
their benefits.
In 2003, the Montgomery GI Bill Biennial Report to Congress
cites that as this program began, 80 percent of those eligible
have enrolled, but only 59 percent have used some or all of
their benefits.
Our veterans have already made contributions. Now we must
ensure that the veterans have the opportunities in continuing
their education.
When our servicemembers leave, obviously, they leave their
families, their obligations, their work commitments, and
economic difficulties often, I think, get in the way when they
return home. Currently, the Veterans' Administration only has a
limited amount of discretion in granting extensions to those
who are unable to use their benefits due to mental or physical
handicaps. This is why the GI benefits should not come, I
believe, with an expiration date.
This legislation, the GI Bill for Life Act, would give our
servicemembers and veterans who are eligible for the GI Bill an
unlimited amount of time to use their earned education benefits
by repealing the 10 and 14-year time limits.
Brent Painter, one of my constituents from Washington state
who retired from the U.S. Navy, is an example of a
servicemember who was not able to use the full GI benefits due
to family commitments. Mr. Painter wrote, ``While attending
college, I had full-time jobs that required travel, so college
was set aside until I could be at home. By the time I returned,
the benefits had expired, so I never did complete my education.
Of course, now you could say I am too old to teach new tricks
to, but I really would have liked to have finished and received
my degree.''
Another veteran from Washington state, Dan Mullen, wrote
explaining, ``I still have 25 months remaining on education
benefits from the GI Bill. However, since it has been over 10
years since I have been discharged from the military, I cannot
collect the remaining benefits. This will create hardship for
me since I will be required to pay off student loans upon my
scheduled graduation later this year.''
By removing the time limit, this legislation will make sure
that these individuals can get the valuable skills and
education training they need to succeed in life outside the
military when it is right for them to do so.
As the first person in my family to graduate from college
and going to school on a Pell Grant, I understand the
importance of a college education. That is why I believe that
the Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act would provide greater
access to education and training courses and will increase the
participation in the GI Bill.
The American Legion, the Military Officers Association of
America, and the VFW support this legislation because I think
it gives our veterans the greater flexibility they need to
access their educational opportunities.
I thank the Committee for this opportunity.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell.
Now we will return to questions from Members to Admiral
Cooper. Admiral, please describe the value of using the
National Directory of New Hires data to make initial
eligibility determinations for individuals' unemployability
rather than using Social Security and IRS matches.
Admiral Cooper. I think the primary value is timeliness
when we use it to look at the individual and employability. We
have not used it before. We have been using comparisons with
Social Security and IRS. I think that is the primary value, the
fact that information is available sooner rather than later.
Chairman Akaka. And when you say the value is in timing, is
that in amount of time that----
Admiral Cooper. Yes, in the amount of time. We usually get
the information that we use to compare from IRS and Social
Security about 2 years late, and so there is a 2-year lag time.
This information, I am not thoroughly familiar with it, but the
information that we get would be received in a much shorter
time frame.
Chairman Akaka. I am very concerned, Admiral, about reports
of long delays in claims processing for initial GI Bill
payments. Some veterans have reported that it can take in
excess of 4 months for a claim to be processed and to receive a
first check. While I intend to explore this issue in more
detail at seamless transition hearings later this year, are
there any legislative impediments that need to be removed to
expedite processing?
Admiral Cooper. No, sir. At this time, I would say there
are not. We were set back a bit with the Reserve program that
came in about a year ago and it came in quite quickly, and it
took us a while to get a computer program that would help us
administer the program. We were doing it by hand. We fell
behind. We took some very definite actions, including getting
more people. We also set up a telephone center that could take
telephone calls so that we could direct more people to
adjudicate the claims.
Our average time got as high as about 48 days. We brought
that down and, the last I saw, it was about 38 days. We are
also doing much better on supplemental claims, the ones that
come thereafter. In other words, once you get the initial
allowance, then the processing of payments thereafter is now
down somewhere in the teens in the number of days.
So we have made definite progress. We saw that problem
about a year and a half to two years ago and took some pretty
specific action.
Chairman Akaka. Is there a possibility of decreasing that
from 39 days to less?
Admiral Cooper. Yes. I think we will continue to improve
that time. We had the setback as we tried to take on the
Reserve program that came in, what we call REAP, and we lost a
good bit of time in that. But I think we are making progress
and do expect to decrease the number of days to process.
As a matter of fact, today, or as of Monday, we were around
30,000 claims pending in education, about 30,000 less than we
were last year. So I think there is definitely improvement that
we have made.
Chairman Akaka. Any changes in GI Bill programs must not
only be consistent with the Nation's obligations to returning
servicemembers and their needs for assistance in terms of
readjusting to civilian life, but also sensitive to the
military's needs to recruit and retain highly qualified young
men and women. Please comment for the record, Admiral, on the
legislation pending before the Committee and other GI Bill
proposals in terms of this latter consideration. In so doing,
we hope that you will consult with and obtain the views of the
Department of Defense, as well.
Admiral Cooper. Yes, sir. I think whenever we talk about
retention, the effect on retention and enlistment, we always
attempt to work with OSD and find out how they feel about the
effect.
Chairman Akaka. Before I turn it over to Senator Craig for
his questions, has the continuation of the Persian Gulf War as
a period of war for purposes of Title 38 caused any difficulty
in working with data from the current conflicts? I want to let
you know that I note that the lack of readily available data
from VA on the impact of the current conflicts on VA's ability
to deliver timely services and benefits has been the source of
some concern in Congress.
Admiral Cooper. We are starting to get a solid stream of
information from DMDC, which is a defense organization, telling
us of all those people who are now GWOT veterans. We are using
that information and bouncing that against all the claims we
have in each of our regional offices. We are then marking those
claims that are from GWOT veterans, and, as we have announced,
giving them priority over all the claims we have. So we are
doing them as fast as we can, making sure that they get that
priority. I think you will find that we will be more responsive
and have quicker information up here, but it has taken us a
good while to get the information necessary to give us a basis.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you for your responses, Admiral.
Senator Craig?
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Admiral, let me make a statement first and get your
reaction to it. There are 26 pieces of legislation before us,
all of them presented in the best of intent to benefit our
veterans. But let me react this way because I know in your
views and estimates they are not yet complete on much of what
has been introduced, or some of what has been introduced,
because of the short timeline you had to prepare for this
hearing.
A decade ago, all of the Members of this Committee,
Democrat and Republican alike, signed a letter, and in that
letter we said this. There are five of us still serving on this
Committee. ``In preparing these comments, the Committee's
Members have kept in mind the fiscal limitations within which
we must operate if we are to get Federal spending under control
and thereby reduce the Federal deficit and debt. We believe
that the government can be fiscally responsible while still
fulfilling its commitments to those deserving among us,
including our Nation's veterans. We also are mindful of the
fact that the uncontrolled Federal spending threatens the long-
term health of the Nation's economy and, in turn, could
adversely affect the provisions of veterans benefits. Thus, we
recognize that those who have worn the uniform in defense of
this Nation seek, as we do, to protect the health of the
Nation's economy.''
From that time forward, we have done a mighty job here. We
have increased spending almost 10 percent a year for veterans.
We are verging on a $100 billion budget. We have recreated a
health care system that is now second to none in the Nation by
all outside and private estimates, something I think we can all
be proud of. We have tackled challenges faced by incoming
veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq, and while we will all argue
here and there that pieces of that service may not be as good
as it should be, it is so much better than it has ever been
before, and I think that is something we can all be proud of.
My concern, whether it is my legislation or any of my
colleagues who have introduced any of the 26 pieces of
legislation on today's agenda, I asked my staff to do kind of a
guesstimate, because some of these programs are readjustments,
others are new spending. But our guesstimate is that this 26-
bill package represents about $100 billion of new spending--
$100 billion of new spending, potentially. That is a lot of
money. And that is considering the readjustments of existing
programs and certainly the adding, and I am not blaming anybody
here. I am part of that with my six pieces of legislation.
Has VA yet pushed the total button on these 26 bills to
determine their cost if they were to become law?
Admiral Cooper. No, sir, we have not. The last set that we
got on Thursday or Friday, we haven't looked at at all, and I
frankly did not try to estimate a total amount on these bills.
Senator Craig. OK. Some of the bills on today's agenda, and
indeed some of the legislation that has been enacted in the
last several years, have as their purpose providing government
assistance to severely injured servicemembers and family
members when they need it most by eliminating legal
distinctions between benefits based on active duty status and
veteran status. In testimony submitted by Ms. Beck of the
Wounded Warrior Project, she recommends a blanket overlap of
benefits provided by both DOD and VA to target groups of
servicemembers and retired veterans. What do you think of that
idea?
Admiral Cooper. I am not sure that I understand what you
mean by a blanket group of benefits. There are some things that
we are doing right now in which we try to make sure that those
who are eligible for such things as education for their
children and adaptive housing have their eligibility
established while they are on active duty.
Senator Craig. It is explained to me, at least as we
understand it, it is a crossover between some of those on
active duty who can't benefit from veterans programs and some
in veterans status that cannot benefit from active duty
programs, and I will give Ms. Beck an opportunity to explain
that. I was seeing whether you had a view of it as it relates
to overlap----
Admiral Cooper. No. We consistently look to see what we can
do, and, as I was saying, with special adaptive housing in
particular, we try to establish eligibility while they are on
active duty and get them the housing properly adapted so that,
even while they are on active duty, they can live in the
housing if necessary and have that special adaptation.
We also have been working to get them signed up for
programs such as vocational rehabilitation. One of the things
that we have tried to do with the seriously wounded is to work
closely with them while they are at Walter Reed or any one of
the MTFs so that we can have the compensation package ready the
day they are discharged from the service and we get the DD-214,
which is their discharge paper, they can immediately start
accruing their disability compensation. So 30 to 40 days later,
they are able to start getting that pay.
We have attempted to do everything we can, particularly
with the seriously wounded, ahead of time--adaptive automobile
equipment, that sort of thing, TSGLI, as you well know. So I
think we have tried to be cognizant of that. There may be some
things we still need to do, but we have certainly attempted to
think along that line.
Senator Craig. OK.
Admiral Cooper. And I will say we are working much more
closely in the last few years with OSD to see that we have one
individual who is a serviceman now and will be a veteran to try
to ensure we are doing some of these things. Some things we are
not doing well yet, but we are certainly working on it.
Senator Craig. Admiral, thank you. My time is up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Craig.
Senator Webb?
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Cooper, with respect to the language in your
testimony on S. 22, the GI Bill that I proposed, I must say
that I am a little perplexed. Just going through a summary of
the page that I have in front of me, we are talking about the
eligibility criteria being more complex in entitlement
determinations, highly complex, difficult for individuals to
understand. Benefits payable at varying levels for different
institutions make the program cumbersome, would complicate
administration and tax VA resources. It is a labor-intensive
process. We are unclear what effect this ability would have on
recruiting and retention, which I want to get back to.
Significant administrative costs, technological changes, et
cetera.
The reason I am perplexed is that this is an almost
identical bill to what came out of World War II, and I cannot
imagine the VA at the end of World War II, when they were faced
with 12 million people coming out of the military and were
asked to implement a program which was identical to this in
terms of how educational institutions were being paid, how
entitlements were being compiled, I can't imagine that the VA
would have said, well, this is complex. I think they would have
said, this is a benefit that our people have earned and we are
going to find a way to help them get it if this is the law that
the Congress passes.
I can't help but wonder whether the attitude of this
Administration is basically, thank you for serving, but when
you leave, you are a second-class citizen. You are not going to
get the same kind of benefit as people who gave service during
World War II, particularly when we start talking about how this
might affect retention. What is the implication here, that we
are going to reward people too much? I would like your comments
on that.
Admiral Cooper. First, let me say I don't think there is
anybody that doubts the wonderful things done by the GI Bill
and the fact that it set the basis for our economy today. I
certainly cannot refute things that are in here as being good.
I will say that, predicated on bills or the things we are
executing now, this is a much more complicated bill and it
would take us a while to get this right, and that is one of the
things that I am very concerned about. I think there are some
things here that the various staffs should talk about so we can
try to figure out how to do it right as it comes.
I can't talk about what the effect is on retention. I don't
have that information. But let me assure you, anything that is
good for the veteran, I certainly would not oppose, and we
would certainly do what we could. That does not alter the fact
that this would be a very difficult bill as it is right now. It
is difficult for us to understand completely how we would
administer it. I can't refute what we have said here. We were
not able to estimate it predicated on the information we have.
Senator Webb. Well, first of all, with respect to
retention, it is a part of your testimony that ``this may lead
to lower reenlistments.'' I know that has been----
Admiral Cooper. I don't have----
Senator Webb [continuing].--that has been some of the
language that we have been hearing unofficially from DOD, and
with all due respect, as someone who has worked in manpower a
good part of my life, I think this would broaden the enlistment
base. And the other part of that is just an equity part of it,
that we can't really say that because you are going to give
someone a true shot at a future so that they might leave the
military, that that is a bad thing in and of itself.
And in terms of cost, we have to come back to the premise
that veterans benefits, and particularly readjustment benefits,
are very much a cost of war. They are the cost of war. This is
not like a lot of other programs that are up here. We have to
help people transition back into their civilian environment.
Admiral Cooper, did you use the GI Bill?
Admiral Cooper. Say that again?
Senator Webb. Did you use the GI Bill?
Admiral Cooper. No, sir.
Senator Webb. How did you receive your commission?
Admiral Cooper. From the Naval Academy.
Senator Webb. So the goodness of the U.S. Government gave
you an education?
Admiral Cooper. It certainly did, yes, sir.
Senator Webb. And I would, having gone to the Naval
Academy, I would surmise--I don't know what the number is
today, but if we looked at the overall budget of the United
States Naval Academy in order to put out approximately 900
graduates a year, the cost that has been incurred to the
American taxpayers dwarfs what we would be paying to help these
people get the kind of education that they have earned, in many
cases, on the battlefield.
Mr. Thompson, did you use the GI Bill?
Mr. Thompson. No, sir, I did not.
Senator Webb. Did you serve?
Mr. Thompson. I served in the Reserves.
Senator Webb. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you.
Senator Murray?
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are here to talk about a number of important bills. I
would be remiss, however, if I didn't ask you about a couple of
other questions, Secretary Cooper, while you are here, and one
of them is the issue of VA bonuses. I am hearing from a number
of our soldiers who have returned home who can't get their
benefits because of a backlog at VA, so they are literally
going for months without any kind of income because of that
backlog. So when they hear about a senior VA official getting a
bonus while they can't even get a benefit to keep them in their
home or feed their family, it is pretty disturbing.
I would say it is especially disturbing to those of us who
worked very hard several years ago, myself, Senator Akaka, and
others, because of the inaccurate information we got from the
VA about how much money was available for the VA and we had to
go to the floor and fight for additional dollars that were
desperately needed within the VA because of bad budget work, to
find out that those budget officials received a bonus is pretty
disturbing to us. So I would like your comments this morning on
the justification, if you could for a minute, about the bonuses
that we are hearing about.
Admiral Cooper. I do not feel capable of really discussing
it in detail. However, I will say that we very carefully follow
the guidelines as laid down by OPM. We have several boards that
review these people and, of course, the ultimate decision is
made by the Secretary. But we have very good people at high
levels who are working on these very problems, and as it
becomes more complicated and we have more veterans coming in
and we have more benefits that we adjudicate, it is very
important that we get people, the best people we can, and we
have some very strong, very good people working at the VA at
those senior positions.
And so I would merely say that sometimes in order to keep
them, you want to ensure that they are not drawn out by groups
particularly here in Washington that are looking for very
talented, high-level, intelligent people. And so I would say
that the people who got those bonuses with all the work that
they did, that those bonuses were justified and they certainly
went through a very careful screening process.
Senator Murray. It is hard for us to understand. We don't
know all the details yet, and I know, Mr. Chairman, you are
looking at this, as well, but certainly for those budget
officials who were giving inaccurate information, it is----
Admiral Cooper. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray [continuing].--deeply disconcerting to us
and we are going to follow up with that.
The other question I wanted to ask while you were here is
that at the President's request, the Veterans Affairs Secretary
released a report recently on ways to improve the transition
from the Pentagon to the VA, a critical issue we are all
following very carefully. There were some good ideas in that
report, but I was pretty troubled that the President limited
that task force to improvements that could be made within the
authority of the individual departments or agencies using
existing resources. That is like saying, tell us how we can fix
the problem but leave out anything that costs money or requires
new authority.
I am very concerned that a lot of really important
information in this very critical issue about how we transition
these soldiers in a better way to serve them are being left out
because of that. I would just like to hear your comments. Are
there things being left out of this report because of those
limitations?
Admiral Cooper. I have read the Task Force Report by
Secretary Nicholson and its recommendations are within the
guidelines that you mentioned However, there are about four or
five separate outfits looking at things. One of the primary
ones is that headed by General Scott, the President's
Commission on Benefits, which has been meeting now for about 2
years and comes out with a report in October.
Senator Murray. Correct.
Admiral Cooper. There is also the report that is done by
Mr. West and Mr. Marsh in looking quite specifically at the
Army and at Walter Reed. There is a third group headed by
Senator Dole.
Senator Murray. Correct.
Admiral Cooper. All of those together, I think, will
cover----
Senator Murray. I am aware there are a lot of different
reports out there, but it was very troubling to me that there
was this approach of if it requires new authority or new money,
we are not going to do it. I think we are in a bind right now
because we haven't been looking at all the options. Mr.
Chairman, I just want it noted on the record, I am looking----
Admiral Cooper. Yes, ma'am, and I think you will find, for
instance, in my administration we have asked for more people,
to get them aboard and get them trained and I have tried to
hire them early because it takes a discrete amount of time to
get them trained. So we are trying to look at some of those
things and do as you say.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that very much.
And finally, if I could just ask real quick on the MS bill.
You talked about it in your testimony. But because the symptoms
of MS do not manifest themselves for many years, veterans can
have the disease and not know it. We have a lot of issues going
on with Traumatic Brain Injury and a lot of other things that
people are looking at oftentimes that are missed. What do you
tell a veteran who is diagnosed 7 years and 1 day after they
conclude their service and are denied their benefits, because
believe me, I have talked to those people?
Admiral Cooper. I think every time we look at a presumptive
or at something that takes a certain amount of time to
manifest, we have tried to have a very careful procedure where
we go to the National Science Foundation, the Institute of
Medicine, and have them do a study. It takes some time but at
least gives a very real basis for us to determine just how long
we should allow this thing to manifest, and that is the best
answer I can give you, trying to do it that way each time.
Senator Murray. In 2004, a report by the Research Advisory
Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, it was a group
created by Congress and appointed by Secretary Principi back in
2002, recommended to the VA that they do do a study on the
prevalence of MS in Gulf War. Has that been done?
Admiral Cooper. I am sorry, I cannot answer that. I will
take it for the record.
Senator Murray. I would appreciate a response back on that.
Admiral Cooper. I just don't know.
Senator Murray. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Murray.
Senator Isakson?
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have been interested in what Senator Webb was talking
about in terms of education, but I want to go to something that
has been done in the most recent years. eArmyU is completely up
and operational now, is that not correct, the online, Web-based
curriculum?
Admiral Cooper. I can't answer that question.
Senator Isakson. OK. Well, that is a DOD----
Admiral Cooper. Yes, sir.
Senator Isakson [continuing].--not a Veterans Affairs, but
to make the point, because higher education is critical, with
the development of eArmyU back in 2002-2003, if I am not
mistaken now, active duty or Reservists who have been called up
for active duty can go online to 34 different universities in
the United States that cooperate through eArmyU and get a
Bachelor's, and in some cases post-secondary credit and degrees
while on active duty and while in service.
I do not know whether that provision was extended. It was
not, in its inception, extended to veterans----
Admiral Cooper. Yes, and I am not aware that it----
Senator Isakson. I don't think it is, but that might be
something we take a look at. Senator Bob Kerrey and I developed
that program out of the Web-Based Education Commission back in
1999, and what you might take a look at is if that provision
could be transitioned to be both in DOD and available to
qualified veterans, you are meeting the intended goal of the
Senator from Virginia and you are using existing investment of
over a billion dollars, which is what it took to put that in
place, so I just share that with you and with the Senator from
Virginia as a partial solution to that issue.
Admiral Cooper. If you will let me, I will look into that
and try to find out about it because I just can't talk about
it.
Senator Isakson. That might be a good way to thread that
needle----
Admiral Cooper. Yes, sir.
Senator Isakson [continuing].--and address the cost issue.
Secondly, on concurrent receipt, which you don't hear much
about anymore, but we are, I guess, in year six of the phase-in
of concurrent receipt legislation that we passed, and to the
credit of the Administration, it must be going well because my
mail and complaints have dropped to next to nothing. Am I
correct that it is going well?
Admiral Cooper. You are correct, it is going well. We are
still working carefully with DOD on the back pay. As you
remember, there were two separate bills passed----
Senator Isakson. Yes.
Admiral Cooper [continuing].--and so you have this problem
of the two separate bills and we are working closely with
Defense DFAS, Defense Finance Group, to get the back pay to the
people from the time that the claim was made or whatever it
goes back to. I forget what the dates are.
As far as the ongoing signing up for those particular
items, that appears to be going quite well and I have heard
nothing bad
about it.
Senator Isakson. And, I might add, that is a $22 billion
investment over full implementation, as I understand it in the
change that was made.
Admiral Cooper. Sure.
Senator Isakson. I credit Mike Bilirakis with that vision
in the House.
With regard to Senator Akaka's bill, S. 1163, which I am
supportive of and have cosponsored, I would like for you to
find out something for me. I don't know that you would know it
or not, but in your written testimony, it says visual acuity of
20/200 or less or a peripheral field of vision of 20 degrees or
less, even when present in both eyes, does not warrant a total
disability rating. It is my understanding, but I don't say I
know it for a fact, that is the accepted definition for a total
disability in other disability benefit programs, so I would
like to know if that is correct, and if it is correct, what the
difference is in your interpretation.
Admiral Cooper. Let me get back to you on that. The total
disability when you talk about housing is very definitive, so
let me get back to you on that particular question, if I may.
Senator Isakson. I would appreciate it, because I think
Senator Akaka has raised excellent points and I know you have
expressed support for parts of that legislation, but I have a
particular interest in that component and would like to know an
answer, so I will be happy for you to get back to me on that.
Admiral Cooper. Yes, sir.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much.
Senator Sanders?
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
There are four issues that I want to cover that are in the
legislation that we have introduced, but before I do, I very
briefly want to comment on Senator Craig's statement a moment
ago. All of us are concerned about the deficit and the national
debt. Everybody up here is. I would simply point out that
repealing the inheritance tax, which the President and many in
this body want to do, cost us about $1.5 trillion over a 20-
year period. All the benefits go to the wealthiest three-tenths
of 1 percent. But if we can provide $1.5 trillion for the
wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent, I would respectfully
suggest we have enough money to take care of our veterans.
Mr. Chairman and Admiral Cooper, let me ask you a few
questions. As you know, disability compensation and dependency
and indemnity compensation rates have historically been
increased each year to keep these benefits even with the cost
of living. However, as a temporary measure to reduce the budget
deficit, Congress enacted legislation to require monthly
payments after adjustment for increases in the cost of living
to be rounded down--to be rounded down--to the nearest whole
dollar amount. The Independent Budget expresses concerns about
that. That seems to me a nickel-and-dime way of saving money on
the backs of our benefits. In other words, if somebody gets a
benefit of $2,988.98, you keep the 98 cents, the veteran
doesn't get that. Do you think we could do away with that?
Admiral Cooper. Senator, that is a law that Congress has
passed.
Senator Sanders. Well, my legislation repeals that law.
Will you support it? Do you think we should nickel and dime
veterans while we give tax breaks to billionaires?
I would hope----
Admiral Cooper. It sounds logical to me.
Senator Sanders. Thank you. The other issue I want to talk
to you is about plot allowances.
Admiral Cooper. About what?
Senator Sanders. Plot, burial plot allowances. In 2001, the
plot allowance was increased for the first time in more than 28
years to $300, from $150. It was $150, went up to $300, which
covers approximately 6 percent of funeral costs. The
Independent Budget recommends increasing the plot allowance
from $300 to $745, an amount proportionally equal to the
benefit paid in 1973. Do you think the VA can support raising
the plot allowance to $745?
Admiral Cooper. I have no position on that.
Senator Sanders. Well, my legislation does that and we
would look forward to your support on that.
Admiral Cooper. Yes, sir.
Senator Sanders. In terms of burial benefits, my
legislation increases the non-service-connected burial benefit
from $300 to $1,270. It also increases the service-connected
benefit from $2,000 to $4,100, which seems to me to be
reasonable. I am not quite sure what a funeral costs nowadays,
but it costs a heck of a lot more than $4,100. Do you think we
can support something like that?
Admiral Cooper. Again, sir, I have no position. The VA has
no position on that.
Senator Sanders. Well, we have introduced--I thought, Mr.
Chairman----
Admiral Cooper. I have not----
Senator Sanders [continuing].--that this meeting was about
getting your thoughts on legislation that people had offered,
and this is legislation that we are offering.
Admiral Cooper. I have not had a chance to review that
legislation, sir.
Senator Sanders. Some of our veterans tragically are coming
home without the ability to use their legs or their arms, and
fortunately, there are automobiles that can be adapted to give
them mobility. As you may know, currently, the $11,000
automobile allowance represents only about 39 percent of the
average cost of a new automobile, which is close to $28,000. Is
that enough help for our veterans, is the question. My
legislation would, in fact, enable those veterans who would
like to be mobile--I am sure all of us want them to be mobile--
to be able to buy the automobile that gives them mobility,
which is about $22,000. Is that something that the VA would
support?
Admiral Cooper. Again, I cannot give you a position right
now. I haven't seen that bill.
Senator Sanders. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the
VA will be supportive. We look forward to talking to you about
these provisions. We should not be balancing the budget by
nickel and diming veterans and rounding down the benefits they
receive. We should be providing plot allowances which are
somewhat realistic, burial benefits which are somewhat
realistic, and it seems to me that if a veteran comes home
without use of their arms or their legs, we owe it to them to
do the best that we can to make them mobile and provide them
with an automobile that gets them around. I hope that you would
be supportive of that.
Admiral Cooper. Yes, sir.
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Sanders.
Senator Tester?
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
hearing and appreciate you gentlemen being here today.
I think Senator Sanders brings up a point on a bunch of
different levels that I would like to just follow up on very,
very briefly, and that is that as I was reading through your
document, Admiral Cooper, there were some bills that you said
you supported and some bills that you didn't support. I would
love, if you guys could do this, I would love to have a
document that said which ones you supported and which ones you
opposed and why. I think it is important. You folks have got
your hands in the dirt, so to speak. You are in the field. You
are doing the work. I would just love to know why you would
support or why you would oppose a certain initiative, policy
decision. I think it is important for us to make good
decisions.
Admiral Cooper. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Thank you, if you can do that.
The other issue that I want to just talk about more
globally is the issue of accessibility. There are a lot of good
bills here, some of them I have signed on to, some I haven't,
but I think they all have merit, depending on your perspective.
The issue of accessibility, though, is an issue that I
continually hear about when I am in the field, having field
hearings with veterans throughout the State of Montana. And as
I have told you before--I think I have told you this before, if
I haven't I will tell you now--it is getting through the door
that tends to be a big problem out in the field.
So the question I have is that, if you were in our
position, assuming that you realize that is a problem, and you
may not agree with that, and that is fine if you don't, just
tell me, what would you do to improve a veteran's accessibility
to the system? In other words, if they have a problem and they
need the care, what can we do to get them through the door
quicker and more timely?
Admiral Cooper. Are you asking about health care? Is the
major subject health care?
Senator Tester. Yes.
Admiral Cooper. Could I leave that to my Under Secretary
for Health?
Senator Tester. Absolutely.
Admiral Cooper. If I may, please, I would like to defer to
him.
Senator Tester. That would be fine. Absolutely.
Admiral Cooper. As far as I am concerned for benefits, as I
mentioned before to Senator Murray, we are doing everything we
can to get more people to help us do claims and get our time
down. But I am afraid I can't talk to you about the health
benefits at the hospitals and----
Senator Tester. That is fine. That is not a problem.
As long as I can get somebody to answer the question, it
would be fine.
Admiral Cooper. I believe----
Senator Tester. I am not trying to be critical. What I am
trying to do is let you understand that that is what I hear
about most.
Admiral Cooper. That is a very important subject and I know
that they are attacking it, but I just can't answer it.
Senator Tester. That is fine.
The last thing is, and I am just going to say this because
I happen to be on Senator Webb's bill, I think it is important
that the VA understand that we are in a different time now. I
know the Senator from Idaho talked about a letter that they had
written. I believe that letter was before the Gulf War and
Afghanistan War. We are in a different time now and we have got
different needs than we did five, six years ago. I think part
of the cost of war that has been pointed out by this panel many
times, and part of what is going to help you with recruitment,
not detract from it, is that we give the kinds of benefits that
are expected.
And I would just say that I don't know what is going to
happen with a lot of these bills, but I think it is incumbent
upon you to make sure that they work, because we can pass all
we want, and if the agencies don't want to make them work, they
won't work.
Admiral Cooper. I will guarantee you that anything that is
passed that comes to me, I will do everything possible to make
it work.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
Admiral Cooper. Sometimes you get a blip. Sometimes we
don't do it quite right the first time. But I will guarantee
you that we will do everything to make it work----
Senator Tester. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much.
Because we anticipate a series of votes beginning at 11:30,
I would like to go to the second panel. But before I do that,
Senators Sanders, Isakson, Webb, Tester, if any of you have any
questions that you want to ask the Admiral, will you please do
that at this time.
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, and I will be very
brief because we want to hear from the veterans groups. I would
just reinforce what Senator Webb and Senator Tester and others
have said. I hope that you trust that some of us are not happy
with the way the VA, over the years, has treated our veterans
and that today, with so many wounded in Iraq, with so many
coming back with PTSD and TBI, there is an incredible
responsibility on your shoulders to do the right thing. I would
hope that you will work with us and go forward in terms of
educational opportunities and the other benefits that our
veterans need. Some of us are going to be pretty persistent on
that.
And again, we think that in the wealthiest nation in the
history of the world, some of us are not going to turn our
backs on veterans anymore and we are going to demand that there
is adequate funding and we are going to demand that the VA
accepts the responsibility that has been given to them and does
the quality of work that needs to be done.
Thank you.
Senator Webb. No, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to say
that I appreciated Admiral Cooper's testimony and I hope we can
keep working on that.
Just one final sentence on the complexity of the bill. It
was the bill in the 1940s, and having worked in the veterans
areas every day for 4 years at one point in my life, the
Montgomery GI Bill was pretty complex when we started trying to
look at how that might be implemented. I hope that in good
spirit, the Administration will look at this in terms of how we
really should be rewarding the people who have stepped forward.
It is a very small percentage of the country that has done this
and they deserve the right to have as big a future as they can
go on and get. That is my only motivation in proposing the
bill.
Admiral Cooper. And if it comes, I will guarantee you we
will execute it.
Senator Webb. We would like to see the Administration be a
little more encouraging on the fact that it might take place.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much.
Any further comments? Thank you very much. Thank you,
Admiral, for being here today.
Admiral Cooper. Yes, sir.
Chairman Akaka. I want to welcome the representatives of
the veterans service organizations to our panel today: Meredith
Beck of the Wounded Warrior Project, Carl Blake of the
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Eric Hilleman of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, Kimo Hollingsworth of AMVETS, Brian Lawrence of
the Disabled American Veterans, Robert Norton of the Military
Officers Association of America, and Alec Petkoff of the
American Legion.
I thank you all for appearing before the Committee today.
Of course, your full statements will appear in the record of
the
hearing.
Will you please proceed in the order in which you were
introduced? I call first on Meredith Beck for your statement.
STATEMENT OF MEREDITH BECK, NATIONAL POLICY DIRECTOR, WOUNDED
WARRIOR PROJECT
Ms. Beck. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
regarding pending benefits legislation. My name is Meredith
Beck and I am the National Policy Director for the Wounded
Warrior Project, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
dedicated to assisting the men and women of the United States
Armed Forces who have been severely injured during the current
conflicts.
Beginning at the bedside of the severely wounded, WWP
provides programs and services designed to ease the burden of
these heroes and their families, aid in the recovery process,
and smooth their transition back home. As a result of our
direct daily contact with these wounded warriors, we have
gained a unique perspective on their needs and the obstacles
they face as they attempt to reintegrate into their respective
communities.
Due to our limited time today, I would like to submit my
prepared testimony for the record and limit my oral comments to
three pieces of legislation that are of particular interest to
our newest generation of wounded warriors.
First, WWP strongly supports S. 225, sponsored by Senators
Akaka and Craig, to expand the number of individuals who
qualify for retroactive benefits under the Traumatic
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance. As an organization, one
of our proudest achievements in assisting wounded
servicemembers was the role we played in the creation of this
program to provide timely payments up to $100,000 to
servicemembers who incurred certain devastating injuries. This
new insurance program has in most cases become the intended
financial bridge from the time of injury until the warrior is
eligible for VA benefits.
While WWP is very pleased with the overall implementation
of the TSGLI program, S. 225 would correct one major inequity.
As currently written, the regulation governing the program
dictates that in order for a retroactive injury to be covered,
it must have been incurred in Operations Enduring Freedom or
Iraqi Freedom. While those who are injured after December 1,
2005, are potentially eligible regardless of where their injury
occurred. By limiting the retroactive payments based on
location and date, the regulation has disqualified a number of
traumatically injured servicemembers from payment.
WWP believes that the same criteria that apply to
prospective injuries should apply to retroactive injuries to
October 7, 2001, the date on which the conflict in Afghanistan
began. It is unfair to deny retroactive payments to those who
have suffered the same grievous injuries during the same
conflict based on the location where the traumatic event and
the date on which it occurred. Without corrective action, brave
men and women who were traumatically injured after October 7,
2001, and before December 1, 2005, will continue to be denied
the same retroactive payment given to their wounded comrades
even though the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance for which
TSGLI is a rider was made wholly retroactive.
Brave men and women like Navy SEAL Toshiro Carrington, who
is here with us today, and who was injured in a training
accident in December of 2004. He was holding a charge in his
left hand when another servicemember accidentally detonated it.
SO1 Carrington was left with a traumatically severed left hand,
a severed right tip of his thumb, and his remaining fingers
were all fractured. Unfortunately, Toshiro's severe injuries
did not qualify him for payment under TSGLI because he was in
the United States when the incident occurred.
Another servicemember, Seaman Robert Roeder, was injured in
January 2005 when an arresting wire on the aircraft carrier the
U.S.S. Kitty Hawk severed his left leg below the knee. Seaman
Roeder was on his way to the Gulf of Arabia when his injury
occurred during flight training operations. Although the ship
was on its way to the Gulf and training exercises being
conducted were in preparation for action, Roeder's injury does
not qualify him for payment under the law as written because he
was not actually in the AOR.
SO1 Carrington and Seaman Roeder are not the only wounded
servicemembers being impacted by the inequity in this
regulation. Therefore, we applaud Senators Akaka and Craig for
their recognition of the situation and strongly urge Congress
to quickly act on S. 225 so that Seaman Roeder, SO1 Carrington,
and other wounded warriors like them will not be deprived of
this vital insurance program.
WWP also supports both S. 1096, the Veterans Housing
Benefits Enhancement Act, a bill that would make wounded
warriors with severe burns eligible to receive adaptive housing
grants, and S. 1265, a bill that would make wounded warriors
who are receiving specially adapted housing assistance while
still on active duty also eligible for Veterans' Mortgage Life
Insurance. WWP again applauds Senators Cornyn and Craig for
recognizing this problem and encourages the swift passage of
these measures.
That being said, we would also like to encourage the
Committee to address these types of issues on a more
comprehensive basis. By expanding eligibility for these
benefits to servicemembers who have not yet been officially
retired, both of the aforementioned pieces of legislation
reflect the reality that many severely injured active duty
servicemembers can benefit from VA services but are precluded
from doing so simply due to their status in the Armed Forces.
At the same time, the Department of Defense offers certain
benefits that could greatly assist new veterans still
recovering from their severe wounds. The discrepancy in
benefits between the two agencies leads to confusion among
families who are forced to try to determine what is in the best
interest of the servicemember, often without having full
knowledge of the difference in the benefits offered to active
duty versus veterans.
For example, consider that an active duty patient can be
seen at a VA polytrauma to treat his Traumatic Brain Injury.
However, while at the VA facility, the servicemember, due to
his duty status, cannot enjoy VA benefits such as vocational
rehabilitation or independent living services that can help in
his recovery if the Veterans Benefits Administration must spend
funds to accommodate the need.
Alternately, a medically retired servicemember cannot
enjoy, among other things, the benefits of DOD's Computer-
Assistive Technology Program because that benefit is only
available to active duty servicemembers. While there is an
obvious need for an advantage to the active duty service, those
who are severely injured as a result of their service in an
all-volunteer force deserve special consideration.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify and
we look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Beck follows:]
Prepared Statement of Meredith Beck, National Policy Director,
Wounded Warrior Project (WWP)
Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig, Members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding pending
benefits legislation.
My name is Meredith Beck, and I am the National Policy Director for
the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP), a nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization dedicated to assisting the men and women of the United
States Armed Forces who have been severely injured during the War on
Terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots around the world.
Beginning at the bedside of the severely wounded, WWP provides programs
and services designated to ease the burdens of these heroes and their
families, aid in the recovery process and smooth the transition back to
civilian life. We strive to fill the vital need for a coordinated,
united effort to enable wounded veterans to aid and assist each other
and to readjust to civilian life. As a result of our direct, daily
contact with these wounded warriors, we have gained a unique
perspective on their needs and the obstacles they face as they attempt
to reintegrate into their respective communities.
I would like to specifically address 5 pieces of legislation that
are of particular interest to our newest generation of wounded
warriors. First, WWP strongly support S. 225, a bill to expand the
number of individuals who qualify for retroactive benefits under the
Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance. As an organization, one
of our proudest achievements in assisting wounded servicemembers was
the role we played in the creation of this program to provide timely
payments up to $100,000 to servicemembers who have incurred certain
devastating injuries. This new insurance program has in most cases
become the intended financial bridge from the time of injury until the
warrior is eligible for VA benefits.
While WWP is very pleased with the overall implementation of the
TSGLI program, S. 225 would correct one major inequity. As currently
written, the regulation dictates that in order for a retroactive injury
to be covered it must have been incurred, ``in Operations Enduring
Freedom or Iraqi Freedom''. It then defines ``in Operations Enduring
Freedom or Iraqi Freedom'' to mean that the servicemember must have
been injured while deployed, ``outside the United States on orders in
support of Operations Enduring or Iraqi Freedoms or served in a
geographic location that qualified the servicemember for the combat
zone Tax Exclusion under 26 U.S.C. 211.''
By defining ``in Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom'' as
such, the regulation has disqualified a number of traumatically injured
servicemembers from payment based solely on their location at the time
their injury was incurred. WWP believes that the same criteria that
apply to prospective injuries should apply to retroactive injuries to
October 7, 2001. It is inequitable to deny retroactive payments to
those who have suffered the same grievous injuries based solely on the
location where the traumatic event took place.
Without corrective action, brave men and women who were
traumatically injured after October 7, 2001, but before December 1,
2005, will continue to be denied the same retroactive payment given to
their wounded comrades even though the Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance for which TSGLI is a rider was made retroactive--brave men
and women like Navy Seal Toshiro Carrington who was injured in a
training accident at Camp Pendleton on December 15, 2004. He was
holding a charge in his left hand when another servicemember
accidentally detonated it. SO 1 Carrington was left with a
traumatically severed left hand, a severed right tip of his thumb and
his remaining fingers all fractured. Unfortunately, Toshiro's severe
injuries did not qualify him for a payment under TSGLI due to the date
on which the accident occurred. Another servicemember, Seaman Robert
Roeder, was injured on January 29, 2005 when an arresting wire on the
aircraft carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, severed his left leg below the
knee. Seaman Roeder was on his way to the Gulf of Arabia when his
injury occurred during flight training operations. Although the ship
was on its way to the Gulf and the training exercises being conducted
were in preparation for action in either Operation Enduring or Iraqi
Freedom, Robert's injury does not qualify for payment under the law as
written. Robert was hospitalized at Brooke Army Medical Center in San
Antonio, Texas for over a year and his recovery and rehabilitation has
been just as strenuous and arduous as it would have been had his ship
made it to the Gulf of Arabia prior to his injury.
SO 1 Carrington and Seaman Roeder are not the only wounded
servicemembers being impacted by this inequity in the regulation.
Therefore, we applaud Senators Akaka and Craig for their recognition of
this inequity and strongly urge Congress to quickly act on S. 225 so
that Seaman Roeder, SO 1 Carrington, and other wounded warriors like
them will not be deprived of this vitally important insurance program.
WWP also supports both S. 1096, the Veterans' Housing Benefits
Enhancement Act, a bill that would make wounded warriors with severe
burns eligible to receive adaptive housing grants and S. 1265, a bill
that would make wounded warriors who are receiving specially adapted
housing assistance while still on active duty also eligible for
veterans' mortgage life insurance. WWP applauds Senators Cornyn and
Craig for recognizing these problems, and encourage the swift passage
of these measures.
That being said, we would also like to encourage the Committee to
address applicability of veterans benefits to severely wounded Active
Duty military personnel on a more comprehensive basis. By expanding
eligibility for these benefits to servicemembers who have not yet been
officially retired, both of the aforementioned pieces of legislation
reflect the reality that many severely injured active duty
servicemembers can benefit from VA services but are precluded from
doing so simply due to their status in the Armed Forces. At the same
time, the Department of Defense offers certain benefits that could
greatly assist new veterans still recovering from grievous wounds. The
discrepancy in benefits between the two agencies leads to confusion
among families who are forced to try to determine what is in the best
interest of the servicemember, often without having full knowledge of
the difference in benefits offered to active duty versus veterans.
For example, consider that an active duty patient can be seen at a
VA Polytrauma Center to treat his Traumatic Brain Injury. However,
while at the VA facility, the servicemember, due to his duty status,
cannot enjoy VA benefits such as Vocational Rehabilitation or
Independent Living Services that can be helpful in his recovery.
Alternately, a medically retired servicemember cannot enjoy, among
other things, the benefits of the Computer Assistive Technology Program
(CAP) because that benefit is only available to active duty
servicemembers. While there is an obvious need for an advantage to
active duty service, those who are severely injured as a result of
their service in an all-volunteer force deserve special consideration.
Please note, WWP is only asking for the Committee to address the
discrepancy in benefits and services, not for a broad overlap of active
duty pay and VA disability compensation.
Finally, WWP also supports Senator Feingold's legislation, The
Veterans Outreach Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation would
enhance the outreach efforts of the Department of Veterans Affairs and
require the coordination of these outreach activities throughout the
Department. In many of the cases we have seen, the creation of new
benefits wasn't needed to aid the servicemember, rather, the wounded
warrior just needed to have the existing benefits systems better
explained and untangled in order to understand what was available to
them. Information is the key for many of our younger wounded veterans,
and for those who are transitioning from active duty to veteran's
status, the responsibility for the coordination of outreach efforts
should lie not only within the VA as required by this legislation, but
also with the Department of Defense.
Finally, WWP would like to support S. 1289, The Veterans Justice
Assurance Act. This legislation would, among other things, modify the
current authorities affecting the recall of judges retired from The
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The changes
included in this legislation would help to ensure that the Court is
capable of handling its cases in a timely manner, an issue of great
concern for all wounded warriors who wish to challenge their disability
compensation rating from the VA.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and
I look forward to your questions.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted By Hon. Daniel K. Akaka to
Meredith Beck, National Policy Director, Wounded Warrior Project (WWP)
Question. What are the top five legislative priorities of the
Wounded Warrior Project?
Response. The top five legislative priorities of the Wounded
Warrior Project are:
1. S. 225-- to expand retroactive TSGLI benefits.
2. S. 1096--the Veterans' Housing Enhancement Act.
3. S. 1265--regarding the Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance.
4. S. 1314--The Veterans Outreach Improvement Act.
5. S. 1289--the Veterans Justice Assurance Act.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much.
Carl Blake?
STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA
Mr. Blake. Chairman Akaka, Members of the Committee, on
behalf of PVA, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. I will limit my remarks to a few of the items
under consideration.
As you know, during initial consideration of the Traumatic
Injury Insurance Rider for TSGLI, PVA expressed concerns about
the proposal that eventually became law. Our principal concern
at that time was that servicemembers should not have to pay a
premium for this coverage, and that concern remains. However,
the Traumatic Injury Insurance has proven to be very beneficial
for veterans who have elected to have that coverage.
We support S. 225 as it addresses an additional concern
that we had with the proposal in 2005. We believed then, as we
do now, that a veteran who incurs a service-connected
disability that qualifies them for this benefit should be able
to receive the payment regardless of where that injury
occurred. A servicemember should not be denied this benefit
simply because he or she was not injured while serving in Iraq
or Afghanistan.
S. 847 would eliminate the current 7-year window that
allows a veteran to claim service-connectedness for multiple
sclerosis, MS, and extend that service-connectedness window
indefinitely. At this time, there is no known cause of MS. PVA
cannot support this proposed legislation that would increase
the presumptive period for MS beyond the current 7 years as
long as new medical evidence has not been presented to
substantiate this change. PVA does, however, encourage this
Committee and Congress to promote more research in the area of
MS and related neurological conditions. We are aware that there
may be higher rates of MS in certain groups of veterans
attributable to environmental or other factors and VA should
examine this, as they did for exposures of veterans of
Southeast Asia.
PVA generally supports the intentions of the Comprehensive
Benefits Improvement legislation introduced by Senator Sanders.
In fact, many of the provisions contained within this
legislation are specifically addressed in the recommendations
of the Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2008. PVA
particularly appreciates the provisions devoted to specially
adapted housing and automobile
assistance.
Currently, the VA has the authority to provide the
specially adapted housing grant up to a maximum of $50,000 to a
service-connected disabled veteran with severe disabilities.
PVA fully supports Section 501 of this proposed legislation
that would increase the amount of the grant from $50,000 to
$60,000. PVA members are the highest users of this very
important grant. This grant allows veterans with severe
service-connected disabilities to own the dream of owning their
own home when they otherwise may not have had the opportunity.
PVA also supports the increase of the grant for veterans with
service-connected blindness from $10,000 to $12,000.
In accordance with recommendations of the Independent
Budget, we also support the provision that would require the
Secretary of the VA to establish a residential home cost-of-
construction index to be used to automatically adjust the
amount of these grants each year. As the housing market has
continued to boom, these grants have not kept pace. Without an
annual adjustment to the grants, inflation will continue to
erode their purchasing power.
Likewise, PVA supports Section 702 of the proposed
legislation that would increase the adaptive automobile
assistance grant. We are particularly pleased that the value of
the grant is initially increased to a level commensurate with
the original intent of this benefit.
Finally, as I mentioned in my written statement, we are
pleased to see that this Committee is devoting a great deal of
attention to education benefits. We believe that Senator Webb's
legislation, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act,
should be the standard that this Committee seeks to achieve. We
also believe a great deal can be done to address the
educational needs of the National Guard and Reserves.
The Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 includes some
discussion about the concept for a total force Montgomery GI
Bill to match the operational integration of active duty,
National Guard, and Reserve servicemembers. We call your
attention to our recommendations and hope that you will further
address the educational needs of the men and women who are
currently serving in harm's way and who have done so in the
past.
PVA appreciates the efforts of this Committee to address
the broad range of benefits available to the men and women who
have served and sacrificed. We look forward to working with you
to find meaningful changes that may best benefit veterans.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I would
be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blake follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carl Blake, National Legislative Director,
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Craig, and Members of the Committee,
on behalf of Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to testify today on the proposed benefits
legislation. The scope of benefits issues being considered here today
is very broad. We appreciate the Committee taking the time to address
these many issues, and we hope that out of this process meaningful
legislation will be approved to best benefit veterans.
s. 117, the ``lane evans veterans health and benefits improvement act''
PVA supports the provisions of Section 104 of the bill which would
require enhanced outreach to members of the National Guard and
Reserves. We have testified many times in the past as to the importance
of effective outreach. It is only appropriate that National Guard and
Reserve servicemembers be handled in the same way. The level of service
being required of these men and women in current operations more than
justifies the need to inform them of all of the health care and
benefits services available.
Although PVA has no objection to the report requirements
established under Title II of the legislation, we remain concerned that
this wealth of information will go unused. Collecting this information
without acting on any findings from that information would serve no
real purpose. We would hope that the congressional committees will use
this information to affect positive change within the VA, Department of
Labor, and Department of Defense. However, we must emphasize that
additional resources should be provided to allow the agencies involved
to properly compile this information as we believe that this could be a
monumental undertaking.
s. 168
PVA fully supports this legislation which authorizes the VA to
establish a national cemetery in the Pikes Peak region of Colorado as
long as there is a clearly demonstrated need. According to VA
information, there are currently only two national cemeteries located
in Colorado, neither of which is near this area. With the rate that
veterans are dying today, particularly World War II veterans, it is
imperative that the VA be able to provide a suitable burial location
for these men and women. The Pikes Peak region would certainly provide
an excellent cemetery location that is centrally located in the state.
s. 225
During initial consideration of the traumatic injury insurance
rider for Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI), PVA expressed
concerns about the proposal that eventually became law. The legislation
was meant to help servicemembers who incur a severe disability while
serving this country to overcome the financial hardship placed on them
and their families while they are undergoing medical treatment and
rehabilitation. Our principal concern that servicemembers should not
have to pay a premium for this coverage remains. We believe that
helping these severely injured men and women overcome the financial
strain of their situation is an obligation of the Federal Government.
However, the traumatic injury insurance has proven beneficial for
veterans who elected to have the coverage. We support the concept of
this legislation as it addresses an additional concern that we had with
the proposal in 2005. We believed then, as we do now, that a veteran
who incurs a service-connected severe disability that qualifies them
for this benefit should be able to receive the payment regardless of
where that disability was incurred. A servicemember should not be
denied this benefit simply because he or she was not injured while
serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. We believe that this legislation
corrects that particular inequity that exists in the current statute;
therefore, we support this legislation on those grounds.
s. 423, the ``veterans' compensation cost-of-living
adjustment act''
PVA supports S. 423, the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living
Adjustment Act of 2006.'' This bill would increase the rates of
compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the
rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for widows of certain
disabled veterans. As we have done in the past, we oppose again this
year the provision rounding down the cost-of-living adjustment to the
nearest whole dollar. Continuing to round down these benefits year
after year only serves to erode the value of them. Furthermore, this
provision forces veterans to bear some of the burden of cost-savings
for the Federal Government.
s. 526, the ``veterans employment and training (vet) act''
PVA supports S. 526, the ``Veterans Employment and Training Act of
2007.'' This will allow veterans to pursue education or training in the
high-technology career area for programs that are less than 2 years in
duration. Many veterans may prefer an occupation that does not require
a 4-year college degree. This will allow the veteran to use the funds,
some of which they have contributed, for specific training in an
occupational field of their choice. As Congress increases the training
opportunities for veterans they must insure that new programs paid for
with VA funds meet the approval of State Approving Agencies (SAA). SAAs
operate through a state's department of education. They currently
review and evaluate programs that are paid for with the Montgomery GI
Bill.
s. 643, the ``disabled veterans insurance act''
PVA supports increasing the amount of supplemental insurance for
the totally disabled veteran from $20,000 to $40,000. Several years ago
when the amount of $20,000 was designated as an appropriate insurance
pay out, that pay out helped finalize outstanding loans or expenses
accrued by the veteran. Today, $20,000 has much less buying power. An
increase to $40,000 is not unreasonable. The cost of the current policy
is more than some veterans are willing to pay. Congress should ensure
that if the benefit of the policy doubles, that the payment does not
double. A large increase in payments to purchase the policy will render
this insurance inaccessible for many veterans.
s. 698, the ``veterans' survivors education enhancement act''
PVA supports the ``Veterans' Survivors Education Enhancement Act of
2007.'' The bill increases the amount for educational assistance for
survivors from $788 to $1,777 per month for 45 months, for a total of
$80,000. It extends the eligibility of dependents from twenty six years
of age, to thirty years of age. The bill also increases the range of
programs that the educational assistance can be used for. This reflects
the fact that all programs to prepare for future employment do not
require the standard 4 years of college.
s. 847
This bill would eliminate the current 7-year window that allows a
veteran to claim service connectedness for multiple sclerosis (MS) and
extend that service connectedness window indefinitely. At this time,
there is no known cause of MS. PVA cannot support this proposed
legislation that would increase the presumptive period for MS beyond
the current 7 years as long as new medical evidence has not been
presented to substantiate this change. PVA does, however, encourage
this Committee and Congress to promote more research in the area of
multiple sclerosis and related neurological conditions. We are aware
that there may be higher rates of MS in certain groups of veterans
attributable to environmental or other factors, and VA should examine
this as they did for exposures for veterans of Southeast Asia.
s. 848, the ``prisoner of war benefits act''
This legislation would repeal the requirement that a Prisoner of
War (POW) be held captive for at least 30 days in order to receive a
presumption of service-connection for the purposes of receiving
benefits. This issue was first considered last year after American
service personnel who were held captive by Iraq during the early stages
of the war were released or rescued after less than 30 days of
internment. These men and women had sustained severe injuries as a
result of combat actions and their subsequent internment. It seems only
fair that any POW, regardless of time in captivity, be recognized as
being eligible for service-connected benefits. PVA supports this
provision.
We likewise support the addition of the following diseases to the
list of diseases presumed to be service-connected: Type 2 diabetes, and
osteoporosis. We have no objections to the requirements placed on the
Secretary of VA for adding or subtracting diseases to the presumptive
service-connection list. We would only caution that veterans and former
POWs should be given the benefit of the doubt before any consideration
is given to removing a disease from the list.
s. 961, the ``belated thank you to the merchant
mariners of wwii act''
Although we recognize the sacrifices that these brave men made in
service to the Nation during World War II and we support the intent of
this legislation, we have some concerns with the proposals it makes.
The importance of their sacrifices cannot be overstated. While
suffering extremely high casualty rates during the war, they delivered
troops, tanks, food, airplanes, fuel and other needed supplies to every
theater of the war.
However, PVA believes that this bill would be very costly to the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). We believe that the money needed
to provide this new monthly benefit would reduce the ability of the VA
to continue to provide the wide-ranging scope of benefits that it
already manages.
We also do not understand how the amount to be provided as a
monthly benefit was determined. As it stands, if this legislation was
enacted, a merchant mariner would be entitled to a payment equal to
veterans who have a 70 percent compensable service-connected
disability. Furthermore, the surviving spouses of these individuals
would be entitled to a benefit nearly equal to the amount provided to
the surviving spouses of veterans with service-connected disabilities.
Although we do not dispute the idea that these individuals should
receive some type of benefit, we do not believe that the
recommendations of this legislation are equitable with similar
programs. We are not certain that this legislation maintains the
priority that the VA follows for providing compensation benefits.
s. 1096, the ``veterans' housing benefits enhancement act''
PVA supports S. 1096, the ``Veterans' Housing Benefits Enhancement
Act of 2007.'' This bill will allow the servicemember to plan and make
necessary modifications to their residence to accommodate their medical
condition before they are released from the service. This will be very
beneficial for servicemembers returning to their residence and who use
a wheelchair as a result of their injury. In most situations doorways
must be widened, ramps must be installed, and kitchens and bathrooms
must be remodeled.
This bill also allows for specially adapted housing assistance for
disabled veterans with severe burns. Severe burns are one of the
signature wounds of the Iraq war. Living with this condition after
being discharged from a hospital could require a precise temperature
control system in a home, along with an air filtration system. A water
purification system may also be required. All of these modifications
take time and are very costly. This bill will give the servicemember
financial assistance to allow them to make these critically needed
modifications.
s. 1163, the ``blinded veterans paired organ act''
PVA supports S. 1163, the ``Blinded Veterans Paired Organ Act of
2007.'' This bill would change eligibility requirements for benefits
available to blinded veterans. If a veteran has lost sight in one eye
and that loss is service-connected, and then looses sight in the other
eye, but not as a result of service, the veteran shall receive benefits
as if both eyes are service-connected.
Currently, service-connected blinded veterans receive up to $10,000
to modify their home to accommodate their condition. This bill extends
this benefit to all legally blind veterans. This small amount of
financial assistance can help to make the blinded veteran more
independent in his or her home.
s. 1261, the ``montgomery gi bill for life act''
Although PVA has no specific objection to this legislation, we have
some concern that it could change the underlying meaning of the MGIB.
Education benefits, particularly the MGIB, are meant to be a
readjustment benefit for servicemembers immediately upon leaving the
service or in the interim 10-year period. By eliminating this 10-year
period, the benefit would then be opened up to a generation of veterans
who may have long since passed the need for readjustment.
The one benefit that we do see to this legislation is it could
allow a veteran to make a career change if he or she finds that their
current career choice was not the right one. The availability of the
MGIB benefit later in life would open many new doors. However, we do
not want this change to open up the opportunity for veterans who may
have retired from a career already to use the benefit simply to give
them something to do. This could certainly occur.
the ``post-9/11 veterans educational assistance act''
PVA supports this bill that would enhance the current educational
benefits for the men and women who have served on active duty since
September 11, 2001. The dollar amount of educational assistance would
be equal to the established charges of an approved institution. This
would give the veteran a greater selection of institutions to pursue
their education since they would not be restricted to less expensive
institutions. An additional amount of funding would be paid for room
and board, and a monthly stipend of $1,000 would be paid to the student
for other expenses. Tutorial assistance would also be available, and
would be paid for a period up to 12 months to help the student with
difficult courses. This amount would not be taken from the student's
entitlement. The bill allows the veteran up to 15 years to take
advantage of these benefits. This is an important addition since many
returning veterans may not be emotionally ready right away to start
school. This educational package offers the veteran many incentives to
encourage them to enroll in school or continue with their educational
program.
the ``disabled veterans insurance improvement act''
PVA supports this proposed bill that provides for increases in the
amount of insurance available for disabled veterans. Section 2 of the
proposed legislation would increase the maximum coverage of Veterans'
Mortgage Life Insurance from $90,000 to $200,000. This is a necessary
increase in today's housing market. Section 3 of the legislation would
increase the amount of term life insurance available to disabled
veterans. The veteran can purchase insurance coverage amounts in
increments of $10,000 up to a maximum of $50,000. These adjustments in
the available insurance are important, particularly since disabled
veterans generally have difficulty obtaining coverage.
expanded eligibility for veterans' mortgage life insurance
PVA supports this bill that would expand eligibility for Veterans'
Mortgage Life Insurance. This bill would include members of the Armed
Forces who have received housing modification grant assistance from VA
for severely disabling conditions. Although military personnel may
receive the VA housing grant to make modifications to a home to
accommodate a medical condition, the Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance
program has not been available for the individual while they are still
on active duty. This bill will correct this discrepancy. PVA supports
the intention of this legislation, particularly if coupled with an
increase in Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance to reflect the value of
homes of today. Often the amount the life insurance policy pays to a
spouse when the veteran dies leaves the spouse with years of payments
remaining.
the ``veterans justice assurance act''
PVA opposes what we understand would essentially be lifetime
appointments for any newly nominated judge to the Veterans Court as
outlined in Section 2 of this proposed legislation. Recognizing the
concern discussed in recent years about multiple judges retiring at the
same time, we believe 15-year appointments, made on a staggered basis,
adequately addresses this problem.
Furthermore, we believe that the periodic introduction of new
judges of varying backgrounds and perspectives that occurs now through
term limits is a significant value to the development of veteran's law
jurisprudence. The difference between a 15-year term and a lifetime
appointment could conceivably be as much as 35-45 years. This time
difference cuts multiple ways and could adversely affect the
relationships among the judges, the bar and veterans in ways that are
unknown at this time.
Realizing also that there is a perception that newly appointed
judges are ineffective for a significant period of time, partly as a
result of their learning process, and that a lifetime appointment would
result in the Veterans Court being populated with judges who are
effective for longer periods of time, and even assuming that there is
some truth to this perception, there are other ways in which Congress
could address this issue. For example, Congress might take more care to
encourage the nomination of judges who have some prior experience in
Veterans Law. Congress could also ensure that the Court maintain an
experienced and skilled central legal staff that would be in a position
to assist newly appointed judges. Congress also may encourage the Court
to look at creating a more active mentoring process, perhaps using
retired judges, for newly appointed judges--a practice that is used
successfully in other Courts.
Ultimately, PVA believes that changing the term of a Veterans Court
judge from a term of 15 years to a lifetime appointment is a
significant departure from the current practice with many unknown
consequences. This is not a direction that should be taken without a
thorough understanding of what the change is intended to accomplish and
without trying other less drastic alternatives.
PVA would also like to suggest a couple of changes to language
included in the legislation. In Section 4, we would like to see the
following language added: (d)(5)(B) ``and other recognized bar
associations.'' We would also like to see a new section ``(E) The
Veterans Pro Bono Consortium Program.'' These organizations would have
valuable input and should not be excluded from the current list of
organizations the chief judge might consult with. In Section 6, we
would like to see the following language added: ``(9) The number of
appeals taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, to
include the number of appeals taken by the Secretary.''
PVA also has some concerns about the study proposed in Section 7 of
the legislation. The study should also include the impact, if any, on
PVA, (an entity that works with the Court and which currently leases
space in the same commercial facility in which the Court is located) of
establishing a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center in the
existing commercial facility. Currently, PVA leases space in the same
commercial facility in which the Court is located. The study should
consider whether additional provision should be required to ensure that
PVA is not disadvantaged in any way vis-a-vis other entities that work
with the Court and are not currently located in the same commercial
facility as the Court.
the ``veterans' education and vocational benefits enhancement act''
The accelerated payment program was enacted in 2003 to address
opportunities for veterans in the high-tech industry. Intensive courses
condensed into a few months offer an excellent opportunity for veterans
to be certified in advanced levels of information technology knowledge.
In less than the standard 36 months of normal classroom study, a
student is ready to enter the workplace. PVA supports this legislation.
We likewise support the provision for accelerated payments for
surviving spouses and dependents educational assistance.
PVA also supports Section 3 of the legislation that would enhance
educational assistance for Reservists. However, we believe that more
can be done in this area. The Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2008
includes some discussion about the concept for a Total Force Montgomery
GI Bill to match the operational integration of active duty, National
Guard, and Reserve servicemembers. We call your attention to our
recommendations and hope you will further address the educational needs
of the men and women who are currently serving in harm's way.
the ``comprehensive veterans benefits improvement act''
PVA generally supports the intentions of the proposed legislation.
In fact, many of the provisions contained within this legislation are
specifically addressed in recommendations of The Independent Budget for
Fiscal year 2008. With this in mind, I will attempt to address each of
the benefits provisions being considered today.
PVA supports Section 201 of the legislation as this is in
accordance with the recommendations contained within The Independent
Budget. It is time for Congress to enact legislation to totally repeal
the inequitable requirement that military retirement pay, based on
longevity, be offset by an amount equal to their earned VA disability
compensation. Likewise, we support Section 202 which would increase the
rates of compensation for service-connected veterans who are determined
housebound or in need of regular aid and attendance. This is certainly
an issue of prime concern for PVA as many of our members fall into this
category.
PVA also supports the remaining Sections in Title II of the
legislation in accordance with the recommendations of The Independent
Budget. We would also recommend that the Committee consider legislation
that would repeal the offset between dependency and indemnity
compensation and the Survivor Benefit Plan.
PVA supports the provisions of Title IV regarding burial and
memorial affairs as they also reflect the recommendations of The
Independent Budget. We also appreciate the fact that the legislation
includes automatic annual adjustments for these benefits. The only way
to prevent the erosion of these benefits is to ensure that they keep
pace with inflation.
Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has the
authority to provide the Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) grant up to a
maximum of $50,000 to service-connected disabled veterans with severe
disabilities. PVA fully supports Section 501 of this proposed
legislation that would increase the amount of the grant from $50,000 to
$60,000. PVA members are the highest users of this very important
grant. This grant allows veterans with severe service-connected
disabilities to realize the dream of owning their own home when they
otherwise may not have had the opportunity. PVA also supports the
increase in the grant for veterans with service-connected blindness
from $10,000 to $12,000.
In accordance with recommendations of The Independent Budget, we
also support the provision that would require the VA Secretary to
establish a residential home cost-of-construction index to be used to
automatically adjust the amount of these grants each year. As the
housing market has continued to boom, these grants have not kept pace.
Without an annual adjustment to the grants, inflation will continue to
erode their purchasing power.
Likewise, PVA supports Section 702 of the proposed legislation that
would increase the adaptive automobile assistance grant. We are
particularly pleased that the value of the grant is initially increased
to a level commensurate with the original intent of this benefit.
Finally, with regard to this legislation, I would like to comment
on the concept of Section 604 of the legislation. Although we have no
problem with studying the claims process to determine measures to
improve it, it is important to realize that this is no easy
undertaking. Regardless of the findings and recommendations of any
possible report, we believe that many of the problems in the Veterans
Benefits Administration are centered on proper training and
accountability. Without uniform training across all of VBA on the
standards established in regulations, problems will continue to arise
and the claims backlog will continue to grow. Furthermore, it is
absolutely essential that VBA personnel at all levels be held
accountable for their own actions and the actions of their
subordinates. Although we continue to advocate for adequate resources
and additional staff, these steps will not go far enough if training
and accountability are not a major component. Similarly, we recognize
that veterans' service organizations have a commensurate obligation to
properly train and supervise their personnel.
In the meantime, it is important to realize that the disability
evaluation process for the VA and the Department of Defense are meant
to serve two entirely different purposes. Although recommendations may
be made to expedite both processes, they do not operate together and
they should not.
permanent authority to furnish government headstones
P.L. 107-330 authorized the VA to provide government markers to
veterans who have marked graves in private cemeteries. This legislation
was meant to provide for recognition of those men and women who have
served this Nation with honor. However, P.L. 107-330 only provided this
benefit retroactively to veterans who died after September 11, 2001. It
excluded veterans who died between November 1, 1990 and September 11,
2001. Prior to enactment of P.L. 107-330, the VA estimated that it
denied more than 20,000 headstones or markers to these veterans. This
legislation would make permanent this authority and correct this
serious inequity. All veterans should be afforded the same recognition
of their service following their death. PVA fully supports this
proposed legislation.
the ``servicemembers' cellular phone contract fairness act''
PVA fully supports the provisions of this proposed legislation.
Just as we testified in 2003, when motor vehicle leases were added to
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, it makes no sense to require a
servicemember to maintain a cellular phone contract when they will have
no opportunity to use it while on active duty and deployed. The
inability of the servicemember to use the cellular phone service should
preclude their requirement to pay for that service.
the ``veterans outreach improvement act''
The ``Veterans Outreach Improvement Act'' is intended to improve
outreach activities performed by the VA. It does so by creating a new
budget line item for funding the outreach activities of the Veterans
Health Administration (VHA), the Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA), and the National Cemetery Administration (NCA). This money is
currently drawn from the budget line item for general operating
expenses.
The bill also would create a structure within the VA to require the
Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the
VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. Coordinated
activities could improve the efficiency of each office and make them
more effective at providing for the needs of current veterans and new
veterans who will be returning home from new conflicts. The legislation
would also allow the VA to enter into cooperative agreements with State
Departments of Veterans Affairs regarding outreach activities and would
give the VA the authority to provide grants to these state departments.
PVA supports the provisions of ethis proposed legislation.
the ``veterans mental health care and advocacy act''
PVA generally supports the provisions of the proposed legislation.
If our interpretation of the statute and the proposed legislation is
correct, Section 2 would allow veterans who experience Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD) to receive medical care if that PTSD is the
result of exposure to toxic agents or similar agents. We question how
it was determined that this particular condition should be added to
this part of the statute. The preceding sections in 1710(e)(1)
designate veterans based on areas of service, not particular conditions
incurred.
With respect to the pro bono legal assistance outlined in Section
3, PVA has no objection to this proposal. We would like to remind the
Committee that PVA is currently a member of the Veterans Consortium Pro
Bono Program. We would be glad to offer assistance to ensure that
viable entities are chosen for these grants.
PVA appreciates the efforts of this Committee to address the broad
range of benefits available to the men and women who have served and
sacrificed so much for this country. We are particularly pleased that
the Committee seems to have made improvements to educational assistance
benefits a priority. We look forward to working with you to ensure that
meaningful changes are made to best benefit veterans.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted By Hon. Daniel K. Akaka to
Carl Blake, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of
America
Question. What are the top five legislative priorities of the
Paralyzed Veterans of America?
Response. During the hearing, you requested that we submit a list
of our top five legislative priorities as it relates to the legislation
that was considered during the hearing. I will outline for you the
principal issues we are concerned about and why we think they are
important.
However, before I explain our positions further, I would first like
to comment on the concerns addressed during the hearing about the cost
of the various benefits. I would like to emphasize that the veterans
service organizations, and PVA in particular, do not factor cost
considerations into our benefits recommendations. The fact is that we
believe all of our recommendations are necessary. It is up to the
elected Members of Congress to determine how best to pay for the
legislative decisions that are made. With that in mind, I will now
outline the provisions that are a priority to PVA in their order of
precedence.
Our first priority from the legislative measures considered during
the hearing is the provision of S. 225 which would allow servicemembers
who incur a severe disability while on active duty to receive the
traumatic injury insurance protection, as part of Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance, regardless of whether the injury was incurred in a
combat theater or not. We strongly supported this idea when the
original legislation was considered in 2005. Every year, more new
service-connected PVA members result from injuries incurred outside of
Iraq and Afghanistan than in the combat theater. This legislation would
correct a blatant inequity that exists in the statute.
Our second priority centers on a broader idea considered in a
couple of the bills. We believe that each of these provisions can be
lumped under the umbrella of special assistance grants for severely
disabled veterans. Specifically, we believe that the Specially Adapted
Housing (SAH) grant and adaptive automobile grant programs need to be
significantly improved. Section 501 of the ``Comprehensive Veterans'
Benefits Improvement Act'' addresses the SAH grant. As we stated in our
written testimony on May 9, 2007, currently, the VA has the authority
to provide the SAH grant up to a maximum of $50,000 to service-
connected disabled veterans with severe disabilities. PVA members are
the highest users of this important grant. It allows them to become
independent sooner and to realize the dream of owning their own home
when they otherwise may not have had the opportunity. Likewise, we
believe the automatic annual adjustment proposed in this legislation is
a must. Increasing the grant only periodically through legislation
serves only to erode the purchasing power of this benefit over time.
PVA also supports S. 1096, the ``Veterans' Housing Benefits
Enhancement Act,'' specifically as it relates to SAH assistance for
disabled veterans with severe burns. Home modifications to suit
disabled veterans with severe burns can take a great deal of time and
be very costly. It only makes sense that the men and women who have
incurred such a devastating injury be afforded this benefit.
Similarly, PVA supports Section 702 of the legislation that
increases the adaptive automobile assistance grant to an amount
commensurate with the original intent of this benefit. Furthermore, an
automatic annual adjustment is equally important to this grant to
maintain its purchasing power as well.
Our third priority focuses on the improvement of veterans'
education benefits. In short, we believe that the Committee should make
every effort to pass S. 22, the ``Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
Assistance Act.'' We particularly support the provision of this
legislation that would essentially realign the Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB) to conform to the intent of the original GI bill following World
War II. This new benefits package would include the costs of tuition,
room and board, and a monthly stipend of $1,000. We believe that this
should be the standard that the Committee seeks to achieve as it
considers improvements in education benefits. In the interim, we would
hope that the Committee would review the recommendations of The
Independent Budget regarding the Total Force MGIB and consider making
changes based on that framework.
Our fourth priority centers on the concept of improved outreach. As
such, we believe that the ``Veterans Outreach Improvement Act'' should
be quickly approved by the Committee. It is essential that the
Secretary, along with the Office of Public Affairs, Veterans Health
Administration, Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National
Cemetery Administration coordinate outreach activities. We simply see
this as a ``no-brainer'' concept. Furthermore, there would be no real
cost to the VA to enhance its outreach activities.
As a part of this priority, we believe the Committee should also
consider the provisions of S. 117, the ``Lane Evans Veterans Health and
Benefits Improvement Act,'' that require enhanced outreach to members
of the National Guard and Reserves. The level of service being required
of these men and women in current operations more than justifies the
need to inform them of all of the health care and benefits services
available.
Our final priority is included in Section 202 of the
``Comprehensive Veterans Benefits Improvement Act.'' This section would
significantly increase the compensation benefits for service-connected
disabled veterans who are determined to be housebound or in need of
regular aid-and-attendance. We believe that current aid-and-attendance
benefits for the most severely disabled are wholly inadequate and do
not reflect the high cost of attendant care. Attendants are essential
to allowing seriously disabled veterans to accomplish basic activities
of daily living, such as dressing, bathing, and eating. Veterans who
are in need of 24-hour aid-and-attendance live virtually on the margins
because the cost of this care is so high. They have very little
positive quality of life because every resource they have goes to
providing for their care. This change would afford them some
flexibility and allow them to hire the absolute best caregivers
possible.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much.
Eric Hilleman?
STATEMENT OF ERIC A. HILLEMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE
UNITED STATES
Mr. Hilleman. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. Members of the
Committee, it is my pleasure to testify on behalf of the 2.4
million men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and our
Auxiliaries. Thank you for the invitation and we look forward
to presenting our views on these important bills pending before
the Committee.
Due to the large number of bills and the brief few moments
I have before you today, I would confine my oral statements to
four bills, the first of which is S. 225, introduced by Senator
Craig. This bill was designed to expand a servicemember's
eligibility under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance for
traumatic injuries. The VFW has strongly supported the wounded
warrior insurance since its inception. It has helped numerous
troops and their families grapple with the financial burdens
associated with injury and the gap in Federal assistance. S.
225 would make a retroactive benefit for all seriously injured
servicemembers who served during October 7, 2001, to December
1, 2005, regardless of where they were serving when injured. We
applaud this change and agree that all injured servicemembers,
regarding of their service in combat theater, should be equally
cared for.
The second bill we would like to testify on is S. 961,
introduced by Senator Nelson, the Belated Thank You to Merchant
Mariners of World War II Act of 2007. The VFW recognizes their
heroic service as instrumental in World War II. Yet we cannot
support this legislation to pay a $1,000 monthly benefit for
life to a Merchant Marine and/or his surviving spouse. This
benefit would be in addition to any other current veteran's
benefit paid. It would create a disproportionate payment in
terms of benefits and recognition for all other veterans who
have also gone in harm's way at the behest of their country.
The next bill is the draft bill introduced by Senator Webb,
Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act of 2007. This
legislation would enhance military strength, provide an
education benefit to fill an ever-widening gap in transition
assistance, and equip a generation of veterans to face the
challenges of tomorrow. The VFW has advocated for a GI Bill in
the spirit of the original World War II-style GI Bill for many
years. This bill would cover the cost of tuition, housing,
fees, books, and provide a cost-of-living stipend. This
legislation accomplishes these goals and many more. It
recognizes the tens of thousands of Guard and Reservists who
have served an aggregate of 24 months on active duty. It
lengthens the post-service usage time from 10 years to 15 years
from the date of discharge and establishes a post-service
benefit for Guard and Reserve.
A personal note, if I may. I used the active duty GI Bill
after completing four years in the Marine Corps. I graduated
from Utah State University in 2004. To afford my education, I
drew the GI Bill. I worked part-time jobs, I was awarded a
sizable scholarship, and I accrued student loans. Hopefully, in
the next four to five years, I should pay those off, given the
current amortization tables. The cost of an education is
growing ever higher. If Senator Webb's bill is enacted into
law, I will give a great deal of consideration to going back on
active service and pursuing a higher degree.
In many cases, the current GI Bill falls short, especially
given that the original GI Bill helped to create a middle class
by educating a generation of Americans after World War II. The
Department of Defense has long used the GI Bill to recruit and
retain high-quality personnel. Senator Webb's bill translates
into a strong national defense program and economic prosperity
for the next generation, the 9/11 generation of Americans. The
VFW enthusiastically supports this bill.
And the final bill I will address today in my oral
testimony is Senator Akaka's draft bill titled, Disabled
Veterans Insurance Improvement Act of 2007. This bill mirrors
the Independent Budget recommendations for Fiscal Year 2008.
This bill will increase the Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance
Benefit from $90,000 to $200,000. Traditionally, Department of
Veterans Affairs insurance programs have not reflected
commercial industry rates. This corrects this apparent
shortcoming for VMLI and goes a step further to create a relief
from premiums for service-connected disabled veterans at the
age of 70. The VFW supports this legislation.
Thank you, Senator Akaka and Members of the Committee.
This concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer
any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman follows:]
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:
On behalf of the 2.4 million members of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the U.S. (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank you
for your invitation to testify at today's important hearing on
veterans' benefits legislation.
s. 117, the lane evans veterans health and benefits improvement act of
2007
The first bill under discussion today is S. 117. This bill aims to
improve VA and DOD transitioning efforts by increasing outreach
services available to our Guard and Reserve members and requires
comprehensive reporting by the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Labor
and Defense with respect to Global War on Terror (GWOT) veterans.
VFW applauds Section 104 of this bill which would enhance outreach
services for National Guard and Reserve members as they are deactivated
from service. Currently there are over 80,000 Guard and Reserve members
mobilized in the GWOT. Unlike their active duty counterparts, upon
demobilization many receive abbreviated transition assistance and are
without a support system able to guide them through the maze of VA
benefits. This will help to alleviate some of the burden facing those
trying to adjust back to civilian life.
The VFW supports Title II which deals with reports on effects of
the Global War on Terrorism. By requiring comprehensive reporting from
all of the stakeholders (VA, DOD and Labor) you will ensure that proper
oversight and planning is in place to take care of the changing needs
of those brave soldiers returning home from war.
s. 168, legislation that would direct the va to establish a national
cemetery in the pikes peak region of colorado
The VFW supports S. 168. Colorado's fifth Congressional district
contains the highest concentration of military retirees in the Nation
and has as many as 175,000 veterans residing in the area. The VFW
Department of Colorado, along with many military groups in southern
Colorado, has actively supported the building of a national cemetery to
serve those who wish to have their final resting place in this region.
The VFW urges the Committee to move quickly on this legislation to
enable this project to be completed in a timely manner.
s. 225, a bill to expand the number of individuals qualifying for
retroactive benefits from traumatic injury protection coverage under
servicemembers' group life insurance
The VFW strongly supports S. 225. From inception the VFW has
supported the Wounded Warrior Bill as a way to provide immediate
financial assistance for those severely injured servicemembers and
their families. This legislation would provide those not included in
the original legislation a chance to receive equal payment for their
serious injuries by allowing all injured servicemembers who served
between October 7, 2001 and December 1, 2005 to be eligible for TSGLI
payments irrespective of where their injuries occurred. We applaud this
change and agree that all injured servicemembers, those inside and
outside the combat theatre, should be treated equally when it comes to
benefits afforded them.
s. 423, the veterans' compensation cost-of-living
adjustment act of 2007
VFW also supports S. 423, legislation that would provide a cost-of-
living adjustment to compensation, clothing allowance, and dependency
and indemnity compensation (DIC) rates for veterans and their families.
Maintaining the purchasing power of these benefits for service-
connected veterans, their dependents, and survivors is very important,
especially to those who have limited or no other sources of income.
s. 526, the veterans employment and training act of 2007
This legislation seeks to increase the types of education programs
eligible for accelerated payments under the GI Bill. Currently, only
education programs in the high-technology industry qualify, allowing GI
Bill recipients to receive lump sum payments for computer training and
electronics repair. The proposed expansion of eligible programs would
include the fields of transportation, construction, hospitality, and
the energy sector.
Enhancing the GI Bill has long been a high priority for the VFW.
This bill would expand the application of accelerated payments based on
today's economic needs. While supportive of this bill, we are concerned
that it will dramatically increase the number of ``schools of
training'' seeking veterans as their clients. With this increase we
expect many will be reputable, seeking accreditation to earn GI Bill
dollars, but also impacting the VA's need for greater oversight of the
accreditation process. Also, with the wealth of new schools seeking
veteran clients, we remain fearful that valuable education benefits may
be squandered on less than reputable businesses squeaking through
without proper vetting. We urge caution in considering this expansion
of eligible schools of training.
s. 643, the disabled veterans insurance act of 2007
VFW supports the next bill under consideration today, S. 643. This
bill would increase the amount of insurance a disabled veteran can
purchase under Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance from $20,000 to
$40,000. Many disabled veterans have difficulty purchasing commercial
life insurance and are only able to purchase insurance through VA's
insurance benefit program. This increase is long overdue and will
provide some peace of mind for our disabled veterans seeking more
coverage.
s. 698, the veterans' survivors education
enhancement act of 2007
This Act would increase the maximum amount of GI Bill benefits
available for eligible veterans' survivors and dependents from the
current $788 a month, paid over 45 months equaling $35,460, to $80,000
total. It allows the benefit to be used for special restorative
training, apprenticeships, on-the-job training, and tutoring
assistance. And it allows survivors and dependents to draw the benefit
until their 30th birthday, extending the usage age from 26th birthday.
We deeply respect the loss, challenge and pain survivors and
dependents suffer. Benefits paid to widows/widowers and orphans grant a
degree of security when faced with the sudden loss of a loved one. The
VFW fully supports enhancement of educational assistance for survivors
and dependents of veterans, but we also feel the benefit should move in
tandem with the education benefit available to the chapter 38 active
duty GI Bill.
The current chapter 38 active duty GI Bill benefit total is
approximately $37,000 and the survivors education benefit is
approximately $35,500; thus, giving some relative parity in the two
benefits. S. 698 would award survivors twice the earned benefit
available to active duty troops. The VFW views such a dramatic increase
as creating an unfortunate inequity.
s. 847, a bill that would extend the period of time during which a
veteran's multiple sclerosis is to be considered to have been incurred
in, or aggravated by, military service during a period of war
VFW supports S. 847. Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is an idiopathic
inflammatory disease of the central nervous system with subtle symptoms
at onset and periods of remission. It is often very difficult to
diagnose. Consequently, many individuals may not seek medical care
until months or years after the initial symptoms appear, as many of the
symptoms come and go and often are not related to each other. Because
the course of the disease is variable and uncertain, it may take years
for a doctor to recognize the symptoms as those of MS. By allowing for
an open extension of presumption of service, you will be including
those veterans who may not have been correctly diagnosed with this
debilitating disease before time under the law has ran out.
s. 848, the prisoner of war benefits act of 2007
The proposed changes in this bill repeal the 30-day requirement for
former prisoners of war to file for presumptive disabilities related to
their captivity. It also creates a flexible law giving the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs the authority to add or remove presumptive
disabilities on the public registry based on medical science. The
Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War will review and recommend
all proposed decisions by the Secretary.
Many ailments, injuries, and diseases incurred or aggravated by
captivity may not manifest themselves until many years after discharge
from service. The law must allow flexibility to keep pace with the
ever-changing nature of war and advances in medicine. For example,
presumptive disabilities like that of Type 2 diabetes and its links to
Vietnam and defoliation agents were not discovered until many years
after the end of the conflict. This legislation is a sound attempt to
stride the chasm between medical science and law.
VFW supports S. 848, which would provide improved benefits for
veterans who are former POWs. We especially applaud the repeal of the
30-day minimum period of confinement prior to presumption of service-
connection for certain listed diseases for purposes of payment of
veterans' disability compensation. By eliminating the 30-day minimum
period so that eligibility starts from the moment of capture, those
POWs who have been held for shorter intervals but have certainly
suffered most of the same physical and psychological trauma as other
POWs will be eligible for compensation.
s. 961, the belated thank you to the merchant mariners
of world war ii act of 2007
This bill seeks to expand the current dates of service for WWII
Merchant Marines who are recognized as veterans, and to pay a $1,000
monthly benefit to these WWII Merchant Marines or to their surviving
spouses. The VFW recognizes the heroic service of Merchant Marines
during WWII. Their sacrifices and heroic efforts were instrumental in
winning WWII. We cannot, however, support this legislation to pay a
monthly benefit, which would be in addition to any current veterans'
benefit that would be otherwise payable. We believe that this payment
would be disproportionate, in terms of recognition and benefits, to
what other veterans who have gone in harm's way in service to the
country currently receive.
With regard to their service as Merchant Marines, and the proposal
that they should be recognized for this Merchant Marine service in
addition to being recognized as veterans, or for a period extending
beyond the currently recognized dates of WWII, the VFW has not taken a
position on this matter.
s. 1096, the veterans' housing benefits
enhancement act of 2007
This legislation would provide VA housing and automobile grants to
servicemembers and veterans with burn injuries and those with traumatic
brain injuries (TBI). S. 1096 broadly impacts the existing grant
program by including these new types of injuries, but it also adds a
reporting requirement with the intent of tracking the types of
adaptations needed specifically in regard to TBI. So much is unknown
about the long-term effects of this injury that every effort to
document and track the nature of this injury should be made. We believe
that adaptive housing and automobile grants should be awarded to
disabled veterans based on the nature of their injury. The VFW supports
S. 1096.
s. 1163, the blinded veterans paired organ act of 2007
VFW is happy to support S. 1163, a legislation that would improve
compensation and specially adapted housing for veterans who have
impairment of vision involving both eyes and allow the use of the
National Directory of New Hires for income verification purposes.
s. 1215, legislation to extend and improve
certain authorities of va
VFW supports S. 1215. We are happy to see funding for State
Approving Agencies (SAAs) increased to $19 million instead of the
previous cap of $13 million. SAAs work side-by-side with VA in
administering its education program. The funding will be well spent in
monitoring educational and vocational training programs chosen by
veterans. We also applaud the section of the bill that extends the
amount paid for institutional training for full-time students to the
current 85-percent rate and allows those veterans who wish to use their
on-the-job or apprenticeship training to become claims adjudicators.
VBA is in desperate need of employees who are dedicated to the needs of
veterans, and who better understand the process than those who have
lived it?
We also support the inclusion of Global War on Terrorism veterans
with respect to DOL Veterans Employment and Training reports on
employment and unemployment statistics. Remaining vigilant as to
employment trends is a critical oversight tool in helping to ease the
transition process of today's servicemen and women.
s. 1261, the montgomery gi bill for life act of 2007
The Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) has opened the door to higher
education for millions of Americans. This bill seeks to eliminate time
limits that often prevent servicemembers from using a life-altering
benefit when they need it the most. S. 1361 would eliminate the post-
service 10-year time limit for the active duty MGIB and the in-service
14-year time limit for Guard and reservists. Time limits prevent
servicemembers from seeking training and education later in life or at
mid-career milestones. The VFW supports the lifelong career approach to
the benefit. If a servicemember has earned the benefit, why prevent
them from using it?
Many servicemembers seek education and retraining later or at mid-
career. This helps them adapt to the ever-changing economy,
transitioning from fields that may offer more job security. Also, many
younger veterans and servicemembers have family obligations that
prevent them from seeking an education early in life. The VFW supports
S. 1261 and the repeal of time limits on the GI Bill.
s. 1265, legislation to expand eligibility for veterans' mortgage life
insurance (vmli) to include members of the armed forces receiving
specially adapted housing assistance from va
VFW supports S. 1265. 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.
s. 1266, the veterans dignified burial assistance act of 2007
VFW supports S. 1266. Current law allows a veteran who is not
buried in a national cemetery, a plot allowance of up to $300. VFW has
long supported legislation that will increase the burial plot allowance
as recent increases have not keep pace with the cost of purchasing a
final resting place 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 believe an increase to $400 is
a good place to start but would like to see the amount closer to the IB
recommendation of $745.
We also support the bill's intent to increase grants for state
cemeteries to help with operational and maintenance costs and the
provision which waives the 2-year limitation on burial of remains of
veterans located in a state veterans' cemetery. Preserving the dignity
of our national cemeteries and those buried in it is the right thing to
do.
draft bill, the post-9/11 veterans education
assistance act of 2007
This legislation enhances military strength while providing a
servicemember's education benefit to aid in transition assistance and
equips a generation of veterans to face the challenges of tomorrow. We
have long advocated a GI Bill in the spirit of the original WWII bill,
which would cover tuition, housing, fees, books, and provide a cost-of-
living stipend. This legislation accomplishes these goals and more. It
recognizes the tens of thousands of Guard and Reserve members who have
actively served an aggregate of 24 months defending our nation. It
lengthens the post-service usage period from 10 to 15 years from date
of discharge and establishes a post-service benefit for the Guard and
Reserve.
The original GI Bill helped to create the middle class by improving
access to education and creating an unprecedented number of
opportunities for millions of Americans. It has eased the transition
from active duty into civilian life for millions of veterans while
equipping its recipients with the tools to adapt to the ever-changing
marketplace. The Department of Defense has long used the GI Bill to
recruit and retain high quality personnel. The GI Bill has profoundly
improved our military's strength and the quality of life for all of its
recipients. The VFW enthusiastically supports this bill.
draft bill, the disabled veterans insurance
improvement act of 2007
VFW also supports draft legislation entitled the Disabled Veterans
Insurance Improvement Act of 2007. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
insurance program premiums and coverage do not reflect commercial
industry rates, and in many cases are no longer providing the intended
benefit for eligible veterans. This legislation will correct that
inequity by increasing the Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance from
$90,000 to $200,000 and create a new insurance program for veterans
with service-connected disabilities. The ``new insurance'' will update
antiquated mortality tables to those used by the commercial insurance
industry and allow for coverage up to $50,000. These provisions mirror
IB recommendations for Fiscal Year 2008 insurance benefits.
draft bill, the veterans' justice assurance act of 2007
VFW also supports draft legislation entitled the Veterans' Justice
Assurance Act of 2007. The current backlog of claims at the Board of
Veterans' Appeals continues to grow at alarming rates. VFW applauds the
provisions of this bill which, if enacted, will provide some relief to
a burdened veterans' court system. Some of the bill's highlights
include repealing term limits and allowing judges who have pending
nominations before the Senate to serve in office while the process
plays out. These necessary changes, as well as recalling retired judges
at equal pay to current judges, will all contribute positively to the
current situation and help to move some veteran's appeals forward.
s. 1290, a bill impacting the funding and reporting
of state approving agencies (saa)
This bill would overhaul the funding and reporting mechanism for
the SAAs. It would help to eliminate redundant procedures, further the
flexibility of VA, and improve accountability for the SAAs. The bill
would require improved coordination between the VA and SAA, the
Department of Education, the Department of Labor, and other entities to
reduce overlapping functions. It would ultimately change the funding
structure for SAAs by allowing up to $19 million per year for SAAs: $13
million derived from mandatory funding and $6 million in discretionary
funding.
The VFW has no objection to this bill.
s. 1293, the veterans' education improvement act of 2007
This legislation would expand accelerated payments for the existing
GI Bill programs to allow funding for any short-term, high-cost school.
The bill would also allow Guard and Reserve members and veterans'
surviving dependents to use accelerated payments as part of their
education benefit. S. 1293 would also allow Guard and Reserve members
to qualify for the 80-percent GI Bill rate, under chapter 1607 Reserve
Education Assistance Program (REAP), with an aggregate of 3 years of
service. This is a change from the required 2 years of consecutive
service. The bill further extends a $600 ``buy-up,'' similar to the
active duty ``buy-up,'' for Guard and Reserve troops eligible under
REAP; awarding them an additional $150 a month over the life of their
GI Bill.
S. 1293 is an excellent step toward resolving inequities between
military service and earned benefits, specifically when examining the
Guard and Reserve. The VFW agrees with changing the administrative
benefit qualifier Guard and Reserve GI Bill from consecutive service (a
servicemember's longest tour) to an aggregate service (counting every
month activated). However, the goal of fairly administering this
benefit may be better served by considering a purely equitable benefit,
such as: 1 month of full-time MGIB for every month a Guard or Reserve
member serves activated.
In expanding the number of eligible ``schools of training'' in
receipt of accelerated payments, we think it is reasonable to assume
there will be an increased use of this benefit. The caps S. 1293 places
on the education benefits: three million for Active Duty recipients,
two million for Guard and Reserve Chapter 1606 recipients, and one
million for Guard and Reserve Chapter 1607 recipients may be too low to
meet the actual demand. This would be especially true if these caps
were based on a previous year's usage levels of the benefit for only
one area of training, technology. The VFW would advise increasing the
caps to allow funding for all individuals seeking to draw this benefit.
We support this legislation and the spirit guiding these changes;
however we ask that Congress consider the full impact of these changes.
draft bill, the comprehensive veterans benefits
improvement act of 2007
VFW supports the Comprehensive Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of
2007. This legislation mirrors Fiscal Year 2008 Independent Budget
recommendations in the areas of compensation and pension, insurance,
burial, housing and vocational rehabilitation benefits. The
improvements made by this legislation would go a long way toward
updating and correcting inequities across the range of benefits and
services offered to veterans. We urge Congress to enact this
legislation quickly.
VFW strongly supports this legislation, which would expand
eligibility for government markers for marked graves of veterans at
private cemeteries. Public Law 107-103 included a provision to allow VA
to furnish headstones or markers for veterans buried in private
cemeteries as long as the death occurred on or after September 11,
2001. The law does not include veterans who died before that date.
Congress has endorsed restoring the right of every veteran to
receive a grave marker that recognizes and pays tribute to their
service from a grateful Nation. This legislation would amend the
current law and include those veterans who have died since November 1,
1990. VFW Resolution 627 calls on Congress to correct this inequity and
allow those who died between November 1, 1990 and September 10, 2001 to
be honored with a government headstone or marker.
draft bill, the servicemembers' cellular phone contract
fairness act of 2007
VFW supports the Servicemembers' Cellular Phone Contract Fairness
Act of 2007, legislation that would amend the servicemembers Civil
Relief Act by providing relief for servicemembers with respect to
contracts and cell phone fees for cellular phone service. Most cellular
phone contracts require a term of 2 years or more for service provided.
If a contract is canceled before the service has ended, hundreds of
dollars in termination fees are collected. Many of our servicemembers
are deployed to areas where cell phones are of no use and cannot be
activated. Most service providers will not suspend a contract while
soldiers are deployed. Our soldiers should not have to pay a provider
for termination or monthly fees on a contract for a service they cannot
use. Passing this legislation is the right thing to do.
draft bill, the veterans outreach improvement act of 2007
The VFW supports the Veterans Outreach Improvement Act of 2007.
This bill aims to improve outreach activities within the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) by coordinating the efforts among the offices of
the Secretary, Public Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Veterans
Benefits Administration and the National Cemetery Administration.
In order to increase effectiveness of VA outreach, it directs the
Secretary to establish a grant program for state veterans' agencies by
providing funding under Section 561 of Title 38, CFR for state and
local outreach services available to veterans.
The VFW has always encouraged and supported increased awareness of
benefits and services provided by VA to veterans. We believe that all
veterans and their survivors should have access to up-to-date
information about services and benefits for which they may be eligible.
However, since success of this initiative will result in increased
claims submissions to VA, we urge that funding for VBA adjudication
keep pace with increases in the number of claims filed as a result of
greater outreach at the local level. We also encourage substantial
outreach efforts at the local and state level be made on behalf of
National Guard and Reserve members and would like to see additional
language which specifies oversight by Congress regarding use of funds
granted to state and local governments that perform outreach services,
to ensure that these funds are being spent properly.
draft bill, the iraq and afghanistan veterans
mental health and advocacy act of 2007
VFW does not support the draft legislation entitled Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans Mental Health and Advocacy Act of 2007 as written.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this concludes the VFW's
testimony, I would be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted By Hon. Daniel K. Akaka to Eric
Hilleman, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States
Question. What are the top five legislative priorities of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States?
Response. The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 2008
legislative priority goals are:
VA Budget
The VFW calls on Congress to pass a sufficient budget for the
Department of Veterans Affairs to properly care for the health care
demands of all veterans, especially the thousands of young
servicemembers accessing their earned benefits for the first time.
The VFW urges an assured funding mechanism for the Department of
Veterans Affairs that guarantees a full, timely and predictable funding
stream for veterans' health care that is provided consistently on time
year after year.
Congress must ensure that the unique health care and benefits needs
of OEF/OIF veterans are met, to include increasing funding for research
into Traumatic Brain Injuries and other related disabilities, as well
as improved access to care, especially for those veterans suffering
from mental illnesses.
VA Benefits and Compensation
The VFW calls on Congress to provide adequate resources to enable
the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) to reduce the current
backlog of claims. VBA is the gateway to all VA benefits and health
care.
We must ensure that the disability compensation program is fully
funded and preserved in its current form to protect the needs of
current and future veterans. The VFW opposes any changes to the current
definition of ``line of duty,'' structural changes to the programs for
disability and survivors' benefits, or curtailment of veterans' or
beneficiaries' rights of entitlement, or to appeal benefit decisions.
Education
The VFW calls on Congress to enact a comprehensive GI Bill for the
21st Century in the spirit of the original WWII GI Bill, covering the
total cost of education including tuition, books, fees and living
expenses for attendance at any educational institution.
The VFW supports legislation that invests in the future of our
Nation's veterans, promotes national security as strong military
recruiting tool, and recognizes the burdens of war carried by our
National Guard, Active Reserve, and Active Duty Forces.
Congress must weigh the short term and long term gains for such a
comprehensive earned benefit. A high quality military force is a direct
result of offering potential recruits a robust benefits package and the
best training in the world. A GI Bill for the 21st Century is an
investment in our Nation, our military, and the individual lives of
veterans.
Military Quality of Life
The VFW calls on Congress to fully fund all programs that enable
our troops to succeed in their mission. We must ensure our active duty,
Guard and Reserve members are provided increase pay, affordable health
care, and adequate housing and work facilities for themselves and their
families.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Hilleman.
Kimo Hollingsworth?
STATEMENT OF KIMO S. HOLLINGSWORTH, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, AMERICAN VETERANS (AMVETS)
Mr. Hollingsworth. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee,
I am pleased to offer testimony on behalf of American Veterans
regarding pending benefits legislation.
AMVETS believes that veterans should be given the benefit
of the doubt when trying to establish a service-connected
injury or illness. In the past, Congress has mandated the
presumption of service-connection in certain conditions and
AMVETS supports these efforts where applicable.
AMVETS supports several modifications to the current
Montgomery GI Bill education program, to include elimination of
the $1,200 member contribution. We would also like to see
accelerated payments for fields other than those leading to
high-technology employment. We also believe that Congress
should eliminate the time period that veterans must use their
benefits.
Overall, we fully support efforts to improve the business
practices between the Department of Veterans Affairs and State
Approving Agencies for education and training programs. We also
support efforts to fund adaptive housing grants and other
insurance benefits for active duty personnel.
Mr. Chairman, AMVETS fully supports authorizing VA to
reimburse the cost of a private headstone or a marker that was
not supplied by VA.
With regard to the claims backlog, it is a relatively old
issue. It is complicated and it is multi-faceted. Overall, we
believe that quality control is central to this issue. In
addition, AMVETS believes strongly that Congress should require
DOD to conduct mandatory separation physicals and also require
DOD to utilize the Benefits Delivery at Discharge that was
jointly developed and agreed to by both agencies. It was used
very briefly during the mid-1990s.
We support initiatives that would raise rates of veterans
compensation to keep pace with the cost of living in this
country, and we would support such a measure to be automatic
without an act of Congress.
With regards to the Service Members Civil Relief Act,
AMVETS supports modification and updates to the law when and
where needed.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy
to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hollingsworth follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kimo S. Hollingsworth, National Legislative
Director, American Veterans (AMVETS)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to offer testimony on behalf of American Veterans
(AMVETS) regarding pending benefits legislation before this Committee.
Last October, AMVETS hosted the ``National Symposium for the Needs
of Young Veterans'' in Chicago, Illinois. More than 500 veterans,
active duty and National Guard and Reserve personnel, family members,
and others who care for veterans examined the growing needs of our
returning veterans. The Symposium findings revealed the need to better
assist returning veterans transitioning to the civilian sector through
improved education benefits, and employment training.
Mr. Chairman, following the first Persian Gulf War, Congress
enacted legislation that provided for the presumption of service-
connection for a veteran's unexplained illness. AMVETS believes that
veterans should be given the benefit of the doubt when trying to
establish a service-connected injury or illness. This legal concept is
codified in Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, chapter 3, paragraph
3.102 that is generally referred to as ``the benefit of the doubt
rule.'' This is especially true for combat veterans and prisoners of
war.
There appears to be some diseases and illnesses, to include
multiple sclerosis, that have a higher reported incidence among the
veteran population than non-veterans, but there is no clear medical
evidence to support a service-connected condition at this time. AMVETS
Service Officers have unofficially reported a higher percentage of
multiple sclerosis diagnosis among Air Force veterans than any other
group of veterans for claims that they process. The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs has the authority to review certain illness and
diseases for certain groups of veterans and make recommendations based
on the findings. Despite this authority, it is a long and time-
consuming process. In the past, Congress has mandated the presumption
of certain conditions and AMVETS supports these efforts where
applicable.
Over the last 10 years, there have been significant improvements to
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) education benefits. Both the House and Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committees were at the forefront in raising the
educational stipend to an acceptable level. Unfortunately, payments to
colleges on behalf of our veterans are taking longer to process. In
some cases payments are taking so long that it causes a financial
hardship to the veteran and the veteran's family. Congress must take
steps to provide funding to the VA to ensure adequate staffing and
adequate technological improvements so that payments are approved,
processed, and disbursed within 35 days of receipt of the appropriate
documentation.
AMVETS supports several modifications to the current Montgomery GI
Bill education program to include elimination of the $1,200 member
contribution. AMVETS would also like to see accelerated benefits
payments for fields other than those leading to ``high technology''
employment. Many work related training programs that require licensing
or certification are short-term in duration, but are time intensive.
These types of training programs also generally require upfront payment
of tuition or fees.
AMVETS also believes that Congress should eliminate the time period
that veterans must use their MGIB benefits. Transitioning from the
military can be a very difficult process. This is especially true for
married personnel and those with families. The top priority for these
veterans is finding employment and a place to live. Many veterans opt
to return to their home of record and later find that meaningful
employment opportunities are in other geographic locations that require
another move. By the time many of these veterans settle into a career
and begin the college testing, application and acceptance process, they
are near the 10-year time limit requirement. This process is further
complicated for combat veterans that may be experiencing mental or
health problems, or other types of general readjustment problems.
In addition, AMVETS believes that MGIB benefits should be excluded
from being considered as income for purposes of determining eligibility
for education grants or student loans. In essence, many veterans are
being penalized for earning a benefit that many other grant or loan
applicants opted not to earn. Overall, Congress must ensure that this
program is capable of maintaining parity, in a timely manner, with the
rising costs of a college education and also in keeping pace with the
trends in how students earn or receive an education.
One of the biggest problems facing our service members today is
civilian employment. Despite some of the best technical training and
years of aggressively using their military occupational skill sets,
civilian licensing and certifying agencies may not certify or license a
veteran without additional training and education. We would like to
thank the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees for including
language in Public Law 109-461 that authorized a pilot program within
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and
Training (ASVET). Overall, AMVETS fully supports efforts to improve the
business practices between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the
State Approving Agencies for education and training programs.
Mr. Chairman, AMVETS has been a vocal critic of both the Department
of Defense and the VA with regard to seamless transition. AMVETS fully
supports efforts by both departments to continue to better coordinate
and share resources, where applicable. AMVETS supports efforts to fund
adaptive housing grants and other insurance benefits for active duty
personnel.
Public Law 106-117 required VA to contract for an independent study
on improvements to veterans' cemeteries. Overall, VA provided this
Committee three volumes as part of the Study on Improvements to
Veterans Cemeteries. AMVETS fully supported the Study on Improvements
to Veterans Cemeteries and believes it serves as a valuable planning
tool for VA and Congress in establishing standards and priorities with
regards to VA national cemeteries.
In accordance with the above mentioned independent Study on
Improvements to Veterans Cemeteries, AMVETS continue to recommend that
Congress establish a 5-year, $250 million ``National Shrine
Initiative'' to restore and improve the condition and character of NCA
cemeteries. Enacting a 5-year program with dedicated funds and an
ambitious schedule, the national cemetery system holds the potential to
fully serve all veterans and their families with the utmost dignity,
respect, and compassion.
Mr. Chairman, AVMETS fully supports authorizing VA to reimburse the
cost of a private headstone or a marker that was not supplied by VA, up
to the cost of a government headstone or marker. There has also been
serious erosion in the value of the burial allowance benefits over the
years. In 2001, the plot allowance was increased for the first time in
more than 28 years, to $300 from $150. AMVETS, along with its other
partners in the Independent Budget, recommends increasing the plot
allowance from $300 to $745, an amount proportionally equal to the
original benefit.
In the 108th Congress, the burial allowance for service-connected
deaths was increased from $500 to $2,000. Prior to this adjustment, the
allowance had been untouched since 1988. AMVETS, along with its
Independent Budget partners, recommends increasing the service-
connected burial benefit from $2,000 to $4,100, bringing it back up to
its original proportionate level of burial costs. The non-service-
connected burial allowance was last adjusted in 1978, and we recommend
increasing the non-service-connected burial benefit from $300 to
$1,270.
AMVETS believes it is also grossly unfair for disabled military
retirees to forfeit a dollar of their retirement pay for every dollar
they receive in VA disability compensation. A disabled veteran who has
served this country for 20 years should not be penalized for choosing a
military career over a civilian career. In fact, no other category of
Federal employee faces the same restriction on disability and
retirement pay. Again, because of action by some on this Committee,
Congress has enacted legislation to incrementally correct this
inequity. We thank you for these past efforts and we would urge this
Congress to fully enact concurrent receipt legislation.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claims backlog is a
relatively old issue that is complicated and multi-faceted. Currently,
the backlog is way over the 600,000 mark and it continues to grow at a
rapid rate. Rather than making headway and overcoming the chronic
backlog, VA has lost ground on the problem. By VA's estimates, over
263,000 Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
veterans will seek VA services; most of them will want to file a claim.
Secretary Nicholson has said that reducing the backlog is one of VA's
highest management priorities.
The reasons for the claims backlog are many--veterans repeatedly
filing claims, a lack of quality control, misplaced or lost
documentation and a lack of staffing. Overall, AMVETS believes that a
lack of quality control is central to this issue. VA must establish a
long-term strategy focused on attaining quality and not merely
achieving quotas in claims processing. Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA) can greatly reduce the backlog by hiring more staff, initiating
quality training programs, and most importantly, instituting an
accountability program.
Despite years of collaboration on a single separation physical and
the development of the Benefits Delivery at Discharge exam (BDD), the
Department of Defense (DOD) and VA still conduct separate separation
physicals and separate compensation and pension exams. Furthermore,
separation physicals are still not mandatory. Congress should require
the DOD to conduct mandatory separation physicals and also require DOD
to utilize the BDD that was jointly developed and agreed to by both
agencies. The effective Benefits Delivery at Discharge joint physical
was successfully demonstrated from 1995 through 1998 and still isn't
universally adopted.
AMVETS would encourage the VA to expand the practice of putting
adjudication officers in VA offices aboard active duty military bases.
For example, VA has an office aboard Camp Lejeune, NC. The office is
staffed with qualified contract medical personnel and full-time VA
claims adjudicators. Separating servicemembers are provided
compensation exams on base. Many claims are adjudicated and issued a
temporary rating decision pending receipt of a DD-214. Once discharged,
many new veterans are receiving compensation and disability benefits
within 30 days of final release from active duty.
The claims backlog has spanned several Administrations and it is
clear that the VA is either unwilling or unable to resolve this issue.
While veterans, the VSOs, the VA and the Congress all share
responsibility for this debacle, what is very clear is that
congressional intervention is now necessary. It is also very clear that
the Department of Defense (DOD) has been absent in sharing
responsibility for the backlog of VA claims. DOD must be forced to
comply with congressional intent with regards to seamless transition.
If Congress does not intervene, the system will fail.
AMVETS believes that a review of claims backlog legislation would
be incomplete without a discussion of Congress' authorization of
private attorneys to access VA and charge veterans for representation
in veterans' disability claims. The Veterans Benefits Administration
has indicated allowing attorneys to represent veterans will only
complicate and lengthen the resolution of veterans' disability claims.
Despite these findings, Congress ignored the recommendation of VA and
the VSOs and passed legislation to allow private attorneys to represent
veterans during the claim process.
AMVETS has 58 National Service Officers located across the country
whose sole job is to aid veterans with their claim. We do provide--free
of charge--a more thorough and complete representation for veterans and
their families. We do not have any financial interests in a claim, and
our National Service Officers know the Veterans Benefits Administration
system. Recently, the Board of Veterans' Appeals released its Fiscal
Year 2006 Report. Out of the major VSOs, AMVETS has the lowest numbers
of appeals submitted. Ultimately the report proves that organizations
like AMVETS are filing well-developed and meaningful claims. Allowing
attorneys to represent veterans will most likely complicate the process
by legal maneuvering in lieu of good sound claim development. AMVETS
asks that this Committee review its decision, and rescind this law.
AMVETS firmly believes that service-connected disabled veterans
should receive fair, timely, and appropriate compensation for their
injuries. We fully support initiatives that would raise the rates of
veterans' compensation to keep pace with the rising cost-of-living in
this country or efforts to automatically increase veterans' disability
benefits each year by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), without an act of
Congress.
AMVETS also recognizes the sacrifices that the Merchant Mariners
made in service to the Nation during World War II. We have a resolution
that supports efforts to provide Merchant Mariners benefits. We do,
however, have serious concerns about the cost and how it would impair
VA's ability to provide the benefits it already manages. AMVETS would
be strongly opposed to funding benefits for this group of veteran at
the expense of other veterans.
Mr. Chairman, on December 19, 2003, the President of the United
States signed Public Law 108-189, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
This law completely rewrites the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act
of 1940, expanding many of the previous law's civil protections.
Overall, the law will allow military members to suspend or postpone
some civil obligations so the military member can devote his or her
full attention to military duties. It is designed to protect active
duty military members, reservists who are in active Federal service,
and National Guardsmen who are in active Federal service. AMVETS
support modifications and updates to the law when applicable.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted By Hon. Daniel K. Akaka to
Kimo S. Hollingsworth, National Legislative Director, American Veterans
(AMVETS)
Question. What are the top five legislative priorities of the
American Veterans (AMVETS)?
Response. The following are the AMVETS legislative priorities for
2007:
The Department Veterans Affairs (VA) Fiscal Year 2008 Budget--The
President's budget request for VA in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 seeks
approximately $86.7 billion for veterans' benefits and services. This
amounts to $39.4 billion in discretionary funding and $44.9 billion in
mandatory appropriations. In Fiscal Year 2008, AMVETS requests roughly
$43.6 billion in discretionary funding.
Mandatory Funding for VA Health Care--In May 2001, President George
W. Bush signed Executive Order 13214 creating the President's Task
Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans (PTF).
In May 2003, the PTF issued its final report and recommended that the
Federal Government should provide full funding . . . and that full
funding should occur through modifications to the current budget and
appropriations process by using a mandatory funding mechanism. Recent
history demonstrates why Congress should pass legislation to make VA
health care funding mandatory spending. In Fiscal Year 2005, VA faced a
$1.3 billion shortfall in spending and Congress had to include
additional funding in emergency appropriations. For Fiscal Year 2007,
Congress failed to pass the annual VA spending bill and the Department
is operating under a Continuing Resolution well below Fiscal Year 2007
requested levels.
Extend Enrollment for OEF/OIF Veterans--H.R. 612 and S. 383
introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate,
respectively, would extend from 2 years to 5 years, following discharge
or release from active duty, the eligibility period for veterans who
served in combat during or after the Persian Gulf War. Continued
eligibility would allow veterans to receive hospital care, medical
services, or nursing home care provided by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, notwithstanding a lack of evidence to conclude that their
condition is attributable to such service. AMVETS fully supports the
passage of legislation to extend the 2-year priority enrollment for
OEF/OIF veterans.
Seamless Transition--In March 2007, GAO testified that the
Department of Defense (DOD) and VA were still having problems sharing
the necessary medical records the VA needed to determine whether
servicemembers' medical conditions allowed participation in VA's
rehabilitation activities. Congress should require the two agencies to
develop electronic medical records that are interoperable,
bidirectional, and standards-based. Congress should also require DOD to
conduct mandatory separation physicals for all separating service
personnel and also utilize the Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BDD)
joint separation exam that was developed and agreed to by both
agencies.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury
(TBI)--VA operates a network of more than 190 specialized Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) outpatient treatment programs
throughout the country. Vet Centers are seeing a rapid increase in
their enrollment. Equally important, AMVETS is concerned about the lack
of awareness and screening among health care professionals for
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). PTSD and TBI clinically present the same
symptoms and the problem for medical personnel is trying to
differentiate between PTSD and TBI. VA's approach to PTSD is to promote
early recognition of this condition and the same must be done for TBI.
In addition, there is no medical diagnostic code specific to TBI.
AMVETS is asking Congress to increase funding for PTSD and TBI, with an
emphasis on developing improved screening techniques and assigning a
new medical code specifically for TBI.
VA Burial Allowance--VA reimbursement benefits were first
instituted in 1973 and provided $150 in reimbursements for deaths that
were not service-related. In 2001, the plot allowance was increased for
the first time in more than 28 years, to $300. The non-service-
connected burial allowance was last adjusted in 1978 and now also
provides $300. AMVETS supports increasing the non-service-connected
burial benefit from $300 to $1,270 and increasing the plot allowance
from $300 to $745, an amount proportionally equal to the original
benefit. In 2001, Congress increased the burial allowance for service-
related deaths from $500 to $2,000. Prior to this adjustment, the
allowance had been untouched since 1988. AMVETS recommends increasing
the service-related burial benefit from $2,000 to $4,100, restoring the
value of burial costs to its original proportionate level.
VA Claims Backlog--The VA Claims Backlog is now over 600,000
outstanding claims and it continues to grow at a rapid rate. VA's
estimates that over 263,000 OEF/OIF veterans will seek VA services and
most will want to file a claim. At the end of Fiscal Year 2006, rating-
related compensation claims were pending an average of 127 days, which
is 16 days more than at the end of Fiscal Year 2003. During the same
period, the inventory of rating-related claims grew by almost half, in
part because of increased filing of claims, including those filed by
veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Meanwhile, appeals
resolution remains a lengthy process, taking an average of 657 days in
Fiscal Year 2006. Overall, a lack of quality control is central to this
issue and VA must establish a long-term strategy focused on attaining
quality and not merely achieving quotas in claims processing. AMVETS
supports increased funding for VA to hire more Full Time Equivalents
(FTEs) in order to address the backlog. AMVETS also supports the
practice putting adjudication officers in VA offices aboard active duty
military bases.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Hollingsworth.
Mr. Brian Lawrence?
STATEMENT OF BRIAN E. LAWRENCE, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. Good morning, Chairman Akaka and
Members of the Committee. On behalf of the 1.3 million members
of the DAV, thank you for the opportunity to present our views
on the bills under consideration today.
There are a number of noteworthy provisions in these bills
and we are encouraged that the Committee is considering so many
ways to expand and enhance benefits for disabled veterans and
their families. It is difficult to know where to begin with
such an array of beneficial measures, but as the title implies,
the Comprehensive Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2007
would be a huge stride toward a more perfect system to help
veterans of the Armed Forces. The bill was reflective of many
recommendations of the Independent Budget and DAV resolutions
and we hope the Committee will consider it favorably.
S. 225 would amend the Veterans Housing Opportunity and
Benefits Improvement Act of 2006 to ensure that certain members
of the Armed Forces injured while serving our country are
covered by traumatic injury protection under the SGLI program.
The DAV supports this measure.
The Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2007 would increase
the amount of supplemental insurance available for totally
disabled veterans from $20,000 to $40,000. The DAV supports S.
643.
S. 847 would remove the time limit during which multiple
sclerosis is considered to have been incurred in or aggravated
by military service. It would ensure that no veteran who
contracts MS as a result of service is left without benefits,
regardless of when the disease becomes manifest, and we support
this bill.
The POW Benefits Act of 2007 would eliminate the
requirement that a prisoner of war must have been captive for a
minimum of 30 days to be presumed service connected for certain
listed diseases. The bill would also add diabetes Type 2 and
osteoporosis to the list of presumptive diseases and would
require VA to expand the list to include conditions that
warrant such presumption by reason of having an association
with the experiences of POWs.
S. 848 would ensure that no former POW who contracts certain
diseases as a result of an internment is left without benefits
regardless of the amount of time he or she was held captive and
we support this bill.
The Veterans Housing Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007 would
provide home improvements and structural alterations to totally
disabled members of the Armed Forces prior to their discharge
and we support this bill.
We also support the Blinded Veterans Paired Organ Act of
2007, S. 1265.
The Veterans Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007, S.
1266 is beneficial, as the title implies. It would give
veterans more access to a dignified burial. We do have a
concern regarding a provision that allows VA to make grants to
States for the operation and maintenance of State veterans
cemeteries. We just want to make sure that it didn't take
necessary funds away from national cemetery programs.
The Disabled Veterans Insurance Improvement Act of 2007
would increase the amount of Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance
from $90,000 to $200,000. It would create a new level premium
life insurance for veterans with service- connected
disabilities who are less than 65 years of age. We support the
creation of that new program. We do question the provision that
restricts to veterans who become entitled to service connection
within 10 years of separation from the Armed Forces. Such a
restriction might preclude eligibility for veterans service-
connected for late onset conditions, such as certain types of
cancer associated with defoliating agents.
And lastly, I would like to acknowledge the tremendous
positive impact the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance
Act of 2007 would have for veterans as well as for future
generations of Americans. S. 22 would provide post-9/11 era
veterans with educational benefits parallel to those provided
to servicemembers at the end of World War II, when veterans
using the GI Bill became a catalyst that spurred economic
growth and expansion for an entire generation of Americans.
Today's veterans carry the same potential and we should grant
them the highest level of resources possible to reward them for
their service.
Thank you, Chairman Akaka, for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian Lawrence, Assistant National
Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am happy appear before you to present 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. We
are also pleased to acknowledge other provisions within these bills
that transcend the DAV legislative focus, but are nonetheless
beneficial to many veterans.
s. 22
The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 would
entitle certain members of the Armed Forces who served on active duty
on or after September 11, 2001, to enhanced educational assistance. The
legislation would require completion of a secondary school diploma, or
its equivalent, for eligibility. In most cases the duration of such
assistance would be 36 months and assistance amounts would be subject
to several criteria such as the frequency of attendance and charges for
the program of education. The legislation would allow assistance for
the pursuit of: programs on a full or part-time basis; apprenticeship
or other on-job training; correspondence courses; flight training;
tutorial assistance; and licensure and certification tests. The bill
would also allow for the pursuit of an approved program of education
while the member served on active duty. All programs would be subject
to approval by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
S. 22 would provide 9/11 era veterans with educational benefits
parallel to those provided to servicemembers at the end of World War
II. Following WWII, veterans using the GI Bill became a catalyst which
spurred economic growth and expansion for an entire generation of
Americans. Today's veterans carry the same potential and we should
grant them the highest level of resources possible to reward them for
their service. History has clearly illustrated that when our Nation
invests in veterans' educational opportunities we are ensuring our
Nation's economic vitality. Because the DAV maintains an acute focus on
benefits that are specific to disabled veterans and their families, our
legislative agenda does not include resolutions pertaining to the
education benefits. However, the DAV acknowledges that S. 22 could have
a tremendously positive impact for veterans and future generations of
Americans, and we certainly have no opposition to its passage.
s. 57
The Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007 would grant eligibility
for VA benefits to members of the organized military forces of the
Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the Philippine
Scouts who performed in active military service before July 1, 1946.
The DAV has no opposition to the enactment of this bill.
s. 117
The Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2007
would grant eligibility for a number of health services to veterans who
served on active duty during a period of war, without requiring medical
evidence that the condition is attributable to such service. Such
services would include mental health evaluation and hospital care,
medical services, nursing home care, and family and marital counseling
for any identified mental health condition. S. 117 would require: post-
deployment medical and mental health screenings to be conducted within
30 days after a deployment; provision of an electronic copy of all
military records to separating members; and outreach to members of the
National Guard and Reserves concerning benefits and services available
upon discharge or deactivation. The legislation would require VA to
establish and maintain a Global War on Terrorism Veterans Information
System, and it would require VA, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the
Department of Defense (DOD) to submit quarterly reports on how veterans
are affected by the Global War on Terrorism. While the DAV does not
have resolutions specific to this legislation, it would be beneficial
to veterans seeking health care services and benefits. As such, the DAV
has no objection to the favorable consideration of this bill.
s. 161
The Veterans' Disability Compensation Automatic COLA Act would
require that, whenever there is an increase in benefit amounts payable
under title II of the Social Security Act, the VA shall make the same
percentage increase to the rates of disability compensation for
veterans with service-connected disabilities, additional compensation
for dependents, the clothing allowance for certain disabled adult
children, and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving
spouses and children.
To maintain the value of veterans' benefits they must be adjusted
to keep pace with the rising cost of living. Clearly, disabled veterans
warrant automatic COLA increases to ensure their standard of living
does not decline. As such the DAV supports S. 161. Along with the
provisions of S. 161, the DAV encourages the Committee to consider a
similar measure that would provide an automatic COLA for specially
adapted housing and auto grants, which also must be adjusted annually
if they are to remain meaningful benefits and keep pace with the cost
of living. A provision that would do so is contained within another
bill under consideration today. Section 701 of the Comprehensive
Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 2007 would establish an automatic
COLA for specially adapted housing and auto grants. As such, the DAV
would encourage the Committee to favorably consider this provision
along with S. 161.
s. 168
This legislation would require the VA to establish a national
veterans' cemetery in the Pikes Peak Region of Colorado, and would
require the VA to consult with appropriate state and local officials in
site selection, and with the Administrator of General Services or other
appropriate officials regarding the availability of Federal lands in
that area suitable for those purposes.
The DAV has no resolution to support this issue, but we have no
objection to the enactment of this legislation to make more burial
space available for veterans.
s. 225
This legislation would amend the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and
Benefits Improvement Act of 2006 to remove the requirement that, in
order to qualify for retroactive benefits from traumatic injury
protection coverage under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
program during the period beginning on October 7, 2001, and ending on
November 30, 2005, the Secretary of the military department concerned
must determine that the loss was a direct result of a traumatic injury
incurred in the theater of operations. The DAV supports S. 225.
s. 423
The Veterans' COLA Adjustment Act of 2007 would increase, effective
as of December 1, 2007, the rates of compensation for veterans with
service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and
indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans.
Within the bill is a provision that ``Each dollar amount increased
under paragraph (1), if not a whole dollar amount, shall be rounded to
the next lower whole dollar amount.'' While the DAV supports the
overall intent of this bill, we have testified for the past several
years that rounding down the adjusted rates to the next lower dollar
amount will gradually erode the value of benefits and they will not
keep pace with the rise in the cost of living. Rounding down veterans'
cost-of-living adjustments unfairly targets veterans for convenient
cost savings for the government. The DAV supports S. 423, but we urge
the Committee to strike the provision regarding the rounding down of
the COLA. A provision that would do so is contained within another bill
under consideration today. Section 602 of the Comprehensive Veterans
Benefits Improvements Act of 2007 would eliminate the rounding down of
the annual COLA. As such, the DAV would encourage the Committee to
favorably consider this provision along with S. 423.
s. 526
The Veterans Employment and Training Act of 2007 would expand the
scope of programs of education for which accelerated payments of
educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) may be used.
The DAV has no resolutions pertaining to this bill but because it would
benefit veterans and their family members, the DAV has no objection to
its favorable consideration.
s. 643
The Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2007 would increase the
amount of supplemental insurance available for totally disabled
veterans. More specifically, it would amend section 1922A(a) of title
38, United States Code, by striking $20,000 and inserting $40,000. The
DAV supports S. 643.
Regarding the issue of veterans' insurance benefits, the DAV also
encourages the Committee to consider increasing the amount of coverage
available under Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance (SDVI). The $10,000
maximum coverage under the base SDVI policy has not been increased
since it was established in 1917. Additionally, SDVI premiums are much
higher than standard commercial rates because they are based on 1941
mortality tables. Because life expectancy has improved since 1941, the
program no longer fulfills congressional intent to provide life
insurance to service-connected disabled veterans at standard rates.
The DAV supports increasing the face value of SDVI, along with
basing SDVI premiums on current mortality tables. A provision that
would do so is contained within another bill under consideration today.
Section 301 of the Comprehensive Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of
2007 would base SDVI premiums on current mortality table. As such, the
DAV would encourage the Committee to favorably consider this provision
along with S. 643.
s. 698
The Veterans Survivors Education Enhancement Act of 2007 would
eliminate the 45-month limitation on the use of dependents' educational
assistance for eligible veterans' survivors and dependents, and the use
of such assistance for special restorative training. It would also make
survivors and dependents eligible for educational assistance until
their 30th (currently 26th) birthday. The bill would make the aggregate
amount of educational assistance $80,000, and it would make survivors
and dependents eligible for tutorial assistance. The DAV has no
resolutions pertaining to this bill but because it would benefit
veterans and their family members, the DAV has no objection to its
favorable consideration.
s. 847
This legislation would remove the time limit during which multiple
sclerosis is to be considered to have been incurred in, or aggravated
by, military service.
Normally, to establish eligibility for service-connected benefits,
a veteran must provide evidence of a correlation between military
service and the condition being claimed. Under presumption of service
connection, VA presumes the service connected relationship exists based
on the other qualifying criteria, such as statistical information
indicating a higher than normal affliction rate among veterans.
Multiple sclerosis is one of the insidious conditions that may appear
years after a veteran leaves active duty. This bill recognizes that
manifestation of multiple sclerosis may occur beyond the current 7-year
presumptive period. S. 847 would ensure that no veteran who contracts
multiple sclerosis as a result of service is left without benefits,
regardless of when the disease becomes manifest. The DAV supports this
bill.
s. 848
The POW Benefits Act of 2007 would eliminate the requirement that a
prisoner of war (POW) must have been interned for a minimum of 30 days
to be presumed service connected for certain listed diseases. The bill
would also add diabetes (type 2) and osteoporosis to the listed
presumptive diseases; and it would require VA to expand the list to
include diseases that warrant such presumption by reason of having a
positive association with the experience of being a prisoner of war.
S. 848 would ensure that no former POW who contracts certain
diseases as a result of internment is left without benefits, regardless
of the amount of time he or she was held captive. The DAV supports this
bill.
s. 961
The Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act
of 2007 would require the VA to pay a monthly benefit of $1,000 to
certain Merchant Mariners who served between December 7, 1941, and
December 31, 1946, and who received honorable-service certificates. The
surviving spouse of an eligible Merchant Mariner would be eligible to
receive the same monthly payment provided that he or she had been
married to the Merchant Mariner for at least one year prior to the
Merchant Mariner's death.
This legislation would provide a non service-connected benefit, to
certain Merchant Mariners or their surviving spouses, that exceeds the
amount of compensation the VA pays to a 60 percent service connected
disabled veteran. Along with the disparity illustrated by this
comparison, the DAV is concerned about the cost of this provision. In
its April 18, 2007 testimony before the House Veterans' Affairs
Committee regarding H.R. 23, the companion bill to S. 961, the VA
estimated that enactment of the legislation would cost approximately
$234.1 million in the first fiscal year and an additional benefit cost
of $1.4 billion over 10 years.
The DAV statement of policy specifies that we will not oppose
legislation unless it is evident that it will jeopardize benefits for
service-connected disabled veterans. As such, we would strongly oppose
offsetting the costs associated with S. 961 against other VA programs.
While the DAV acknowledges the bravery, sacrifice, and contributions of
the Merchant Mariners of WWII, we cannot support S. 961.
s. 1096
The Veterans' Housing Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007 would
provide home improvements and structural alterations to totally
disabled members of the Armed Forces prior to their discharge or
release from active service. The bill would also expand the number of
veterans eligible for such benefits to include disabled veterans with
severe burns. It would require VA to submit to Congress a report that
contains an assessment of the adequacy of the authorities available to
the VA to assist disabled veterans in acquiring: suitable housing units
with special fixtures or movable facilities required for their
disabilities; adaptations to their residences that are reasonably
necessary because of their disabilities; or, residences already adapted
with special features determined by the VA to be reasonably necessary
as a result of their disabilities. S. 1096 would provide assistance for
automobiles and adaptive equipment to disabled veterans with severe
burns. It would provide partial housing grants for those veterans
residing with a family member to include servicemembers still on active
duty and awaiting their final VA disability rating. This legislation
will also require the VA to report on the need for a permanent housing
grant for wounded veterans who reside with family members.
S. 1096 would provide immediate, meaningful assistance to disabled
veterans and their families by strengthening and expanding current
laws. The DAV fully supports this commendable bill.
s. 1163
The Blinded Veterans Paired Organ Act of 2007 would grant
eligibility for compensation and specially adapted housing to certain
veterans with impairment of vision involving both eyes. The VA
disburses home adaptation grants of up to $10,000 to veterans with a
service-connected blindness in both eyes. Current law requires that
such veterans have a visual acuity of 5/200 or less in order to be
eligible for these grants. This legislation would ease this standard to
include veterans who have a visual acuity of 20/200 or less. It would
also make specially adapted housing grants available to veterans with a
visual acuity of 20/200 or less, or a peripheral field of vision of 20
degrees or less. The bill would also provide for the use of the
National Directory of New Hires for income verification purposes.
This commendable legislation takes into consideration the high
number of injuries related to improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
Along with traumatic brain injuries, IEDs frequently cause damage to
servicemembers' vision. This bill will allow those who have suffered
severe vision impairment to speed their readjustment by adapting their
homes to accommodate the disability. Additionally, those who have
suffered blindness in one eye will be assured that they are provided
for in the event that they lose sight in the other eye. The DAV
appreciates and strongly supports this provision of S. 1163, but we
have no resolution pertaining to the use of the National Directory of
New Hires for income verification purposes.
s. 1215
This legislation would raise the cap on funds for State Approving
Agencies and extend authority for a pilot program for on-the-job claim
adjudicators' training. It would also: update various reporting
requirements; authorize case-by-case waiver of residency requirement
for a Director for Veterans' Employment and Training; modify an
unemployment study to cover veterans of the Global War on Terror;
extend an increase in benefit for individuals pursuing apprenticeship
or on-job-training. The DAV has no opposition to the enactment of this
bill.
s. 1261
The Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007 would repeal the 10-
year limit on the use of veterans' educational benefits. It would
extend entitlement that was set to expire to allow a veteran to
complete the quarter or semester, and it would repeal the 14-year limit
on the use of selected reserve educational assistance benefits. The DAV
has no resolutions pertaining to this bill, but because it would
benefit veterans and their family members, the DAV has no objection to
its favorable consideration.
s. 1265
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.
s. 1266
The Veterans' Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007 would
increase plot or interment allowance from $300 to $400, and it would
repeal the time limit for States filing for reimbursement of internment
costs. This bill would also authorize VA to make grants to States for
the operation and maintenance of State veterans' cemeteries.
Overall, S. 1266 is a bill that 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 increase the burial
allowance payable in the case of death due to service-connected
disability and to provide for automatic annual adjustments 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). While the DAV supports the favorable consideration
of S. 1266, it is noteworthy that another bill under consideration
today, the Comprehensive Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 2007,
would increase the plot allowance to $745. As such, the DAV would
encourage the Committee to approve the more favorable plot allowance
provision.
the disabled veterans insurance improvement act of 2007
This draft bill would increase the amount of veterans' mortgage
life insurance (VMLI) from $90,000 to $200,000. It would create a new
level-premium life insurance for veterans with service connected
disabilities who are less than 65 years of age. The amount of insurance
granted would be a maximum of $50,000. Eligible veterans could elect
lesser amounts of life insurance, which would be available in $10,000
increments. For veterans insured under this program who reached 70
years of age, the amount available would be reduced to equal 20 percent
of the amount previously covered. Premiums would be based on the 2001
Commissioners Standard Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality and interest
rate of 4.5 per centum per annum. The bill would expand coverage of
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance to include members of the
individual ready Reserve.
Overall, this bill is favorable to both veterans and disabled
veterans. The DAV specifically supports the creation of level-premium
life insurance for veterans with service connected disabilities. While
this provision expands benefits for disabled veterans, the DAV
questions the rationale for restricting it to veterans who became
entitled to VA service connection within 10 years of separation from
the Armed Forces. Such a restriction would preclude eligibility for
veterans service connected for latent onset conditions such as certain
types of cancer associated with defoliant agents. We hope that the
Committee will strike this restriction to prevent the unintended
inequity it would create for a significant number of disabled veterans.
the veterans' justice assurance act of 2007
This draft bill would repeal term limits for judges of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims, and it would increase the
salary amount for the chief judge of the Court. The bill would
establish provisions to recall retired judges of the Court, and it
would grant the Court discretion to set reasonable practice and
registration fees. It would require the Court to submit an annual
report to Congress that summarizes the Court's workload during the
previous fiscal year. Last, the bill would produce a report on the
feasibility of establishing a Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center.
With regard to the repeal of term limits for judges of the Court,
the DAV does not believe that appointing judges to longer terms is
desirable. Appointments to extended terms during good behavior are
generally reserved for judges of Article III courts. Since judges of
the Court may be removed by the President by reason of misconduct, 38
U.S.C. Sec. 7253(f), there is no doubt that the Court is part of the
executive branch. The proposed departure from the present 15-year term
might raise a question about the status of the Court because there
seems to be no precedent for life tenure within the executive branch.
The DAV has no objection to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims receiving a higher rate of compensation than the other
judges of the Court. Regarding the recall of retired judges, the DAV
notes that the proposed provisions for doing so are somewhat complex
and may raise issues for judges who have retired far from Washington,
DC. The Committee might want to consider simpler staffing solutions,
such as increasing the number of judges authorized for the Court. The
DAV believes that the proposed annual report to Congress from the Court
should be more specific and include, along with the number and type of
dispositions, the number of dispositions based on settlements, joint
motions for remand, voluntary dismissals, and the number of memorandum
decisions made by each judge. The DAV supports the establishment of a
dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center. During the most
recent DAV National Convention, our members voted to again adopt a long
standing resolution calling for such a facility. Our resolution
envisions an architectural design and location that is reflective of
the United States' respect and gratitude for veterans of military
service. Rather than designating the office building where the Court
currently leases space as the permanent facility, we encourage the
Committee to authorize the construction of a new Veterans Courthouse
and Justice Center that features the design and location worthy of its
status.
the veterans' education and vocational benefits improvement act of 2007
This draft bill would provide a temporary expansion of courses for
which accelerated payment of educational assistance for veterans and
their dependents may be made. It would also enhance educational
assistance for Reserve component members supporting contingency
operations and other operations. The DAV has no resolutions pertaining
to this bill but because it would benefit veterans and their family
members, the DAV has no objection to its favorable consideration.
draft bill
This draft bill would provide additional discretion to VA in
contracting with State Approving Agencies. The DAV has no resolutions
pertaining to this bill but because it would benefit veterans and their
family members, the DAV has no objection to its favorable
consideration.
comprehensive veterans benefits improvements act of 2007
This draft bill contains a number of provisions to improve benefits
and services for veterans. Many such provisions are reflective of both
the DAV Legislative Program resolutions and the recommendations of the
IB. Where applicable, this testimony points out the bill's provisions
that relate to DAV resolutions or IB recommendations. Mr. Chairman, per
your instruction, the portion of the bill pertaining to health care
matters is not addressed in this testimony.
Section 201 of the bill would repeal the prohibition on concurrent
receipt of VA compensation and military longevity retirement pay. This
provision is consistent with both DAV Resolution Number 003 and the IB
recommendation on this issue.
Currently, some former servicemembers who are retired from the
Armed Forces on the basis of length of service must forfeit a portion
of the retired pay they earned through faithful performance of military
service to receive VA compensation for service-connected disabilities.
This is inequitable because military retired pay is earned by virtue of
a veteran's long service on behalf of the Nation. Entitlement to
compensation, on the other hand, is because of disability incurred
during that military service. Most non-disabled military retirees
pursue second careers after serving, in order to supplement their
income, thereby justly enjoying a full reward for completion of a
military career along with the added reward of full pay in civilian
employment. In contrast, military retirees with service-connected
disabilities do not enjoy the same full earning potential. Their
earning potential is reduced commensurate with the degree of service-
connected disability. To put them on equal footing with non-disabled
military retirees, disabled retirees should receive full military
retired pay and compensation, to account for diminution of their
earning capacities.
The DAV supports the provision of this bill that would repeal the
offset between military longevity retired pay and VA disability
compensation for those service connected less than 50 percent. The DAV
has no resolutions pertaining to concurrent receipt for Chapter 61
retirees with less than twenty years of military service, but because
it would benefit veterans and their family members, the DAV has no
objection to its favorable consideration.
Section 202 would increase the rates special monthly compensation.
This provision is consistent with the recommendation of the IB on this
issue. The VA, under the provisions of title 38, United States Code,
section 1114(k) through (s), provides additional special compensation
to select categories of veterans with very severe, debilitating
disabilities, such as the loss of a limb, loss of certain senses, and
to those who require the assistance of an aide for the activities of
daily living, such as dressing, toileting, bathing, and eating. The
payment of special monthly compensation, while minimally adjusted for
inflation each year, is now no longer sufficient to compensate for the
special needs of these veterans. As such the DAV supports this
commendable provision to increase this crucial benefit.
Section 203 would establish a minimum VA disability rating of 10
percent for veterans with service connected hearing loss requiring a
hearing aid. This provision is consistent with both DAV Resolution
Number 122 and the IB recommendation on this issue. Currently, The VA
Schedule for Rating Disabilities does not provide a compensable rating
for hearing loss at certain levels severe enough to require hearing
aids. The minimum disability rating for any hearing loss warranting use
of hearing aids should be 10 percent, and the schedule should be
changed accordingly. A disability severe enough to require use of a
prosthetic device should be compensable. Beyond the functional
impairment and disadvantages of artificial restoration of hearing,
hearing aids affect the wearer's physical appearance. As such, the DAV
supports this provision to provide a minimum 10 percent disability
rating for hearing loss for which a hearing aid is required.
Section 204 would increase the rate of dependency indemnity
compensation for surviving spouses of members of the Armed Forces who
die while on active duty. This provision is consistent with the
recommendation of the IB on this issue, and the DAV supports its
favorable consideration.
Section 205 would lower the age threshold for eligibility for
restoration of dependency and indemnity compensation to remarriage of
survivors of veterans who die from service-connected disabilities. This
provision is consistent with the recommendation of the IB on this
issue, and the DAV supports its favorable consideration.
Section 206 would eliminate an inequity in current law controlling
the beginning date for payment of increased compensation based on
periods of incapacity due to hospitalization or convalescence.
Hospitalization in excess of 21 days for a service connected disability
entitles the veteran to a temporary total disability rating of 100
percent. This rating is effective the first day of hospitalization and
continues to the last day of the month of discharge from hospital.
Although the effective date of the temporary total disability rating
corresponds to the beginning date of hospitalization or treatment, the
provisions of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5111 delay the effective date for payment
purposes until the first day of the month following the effective date
of the increased rating. This provision deprives veterans of any
increase in compensation to offset the total disability during the
first month in which temporary total disability occurs. This
deprivation and consequent delay in the payment of increased
compensation often jeopardizes disabled veterans' financial security
and unfairly causes them hardships. Therefore, the DAV supports this
measure to authorize increased compensation on the basis of a temporary
total rating for hospitalization or convalescence to be effective, for
payment purposes, on the date of admission to the hospital or the date
of treatment, surgery, or other circumstances necessitating
convalescence.
Section 207 would produce a report on the adequacy of dependency
and indemnity compensation to ensure the level of VA financial support
is adequate to maintain these beneficiaries above the poverty level.
This provision is consistent with the recommendation of the IB on this
issue, and the DAV supports its favorable consideration.
Section 301 would lower premiums for Service Disabled Veterans'
Insurance (SDVI) policies based on improved life expectancy under
current mortality tables. Because of service-connected disabilities,
disabled veterans have difficulty getting or are charged higher
premiums for life insurance on the commercial market. Congress
therefore created the SDVI program to furnish disabled veterans life
insurance at standard rates. When this program began in 1951, its
rates, based on mortality tables then in use, were competitive with
commercial insurance. Commercial rates have since been lowered to
reflect improved life expectancy shown by current mortality tables. VA
continues to base its rates on mortality tables from 1941 however.
Consequently, SDVI premiums are no longer competitive with commercial
insurance and therefore no longer provide the intended benefit for
eligible veterans. This provision, which would restore SDVI to its
intended purpose, is consistent with both DAV Resolution Number 191 and
the IB recommendation on this issue. Section 301 would also increase
the amount of coverage from $10,000 to $50,000. This increase is also
reflective of the IB and DAV Resolution Number 022. As such, the DAV
supports this provision.
Section 401 would increase plot or interment allowance from $300 to
$745, and it would provide for an automatic annual COLA for the plot
allowance to keep pace with rising costs. This provision is consistent
with the recommendation of the IB on this issue, and the DAV supports
its favorable consideration.
Section 402 would increase plot allowance and burial expenses for
disabled veterans, from $300 to $1,270 and from $2,000 to $4,100
respectively. This provision is consistent with both DAV Resolution
Number 202 and the IB recommendation on this issue. Therefore, the DAV
supports this provision.
Section 403 would authorize $37 million for the State veterans'
cemetery grants for Fiscal Year 2008. This provision is consistent with
the recommendation of the IB on this issue, and the DAV supports its
favorable consideration.
Section 501 would increase specially adapted housing grants. The
current $50,000 grant would be increased to $60,000, and the current
$10,000 grant would be increased to $12,000. This section would also
provide for future automatic annual adjustments indexed to the rise in
the cost-of-living. VA currently provides specially adapted housing
grants of up to $50,000 to veterans with service-connected disabilities
consisting of certain combinations of loss or loss of use of
extremities and blindness or other organic diseases or injuries.
Veterans with service-connected blindness alone or with loss or loss of
use of both upper extremities may receive a home adaptation grant of up
to $10,000. Increases in housing and home adaptation grants have been
infrequent, although real estate and construction costs rise
continually. Unless the amounts of the grants are periodically
adjusted, inflation erodes the value and effectiveness of these
benefits, which are payable to a select few but among the most
seriously disabled service-connected veterans. This provision, which
would address the need for such increases, is consistent with both DAV
Resolution Number 021 and the IB recommendation on this issue;
therefore, the DAV supports this provision.
Section 502 would increase the amount of VMLI from $90,000 to
$150,000. This provision is consistent with the recommendation of the
IB on this issue, and the DAV supports its favorable consideration.
Section 503 would make members of the National Guard and Reserves,
who serve on active duty for at least one year, eligible for housing
loans. The DAV has no resolutions pertaining to this bill, but because
it would benefit veterans and their family members, the DAV has no
objection to its favorable consideration.
Section 504 would adjust housing loan fees to rates in effect
before the enactment of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2003. The DAV has
no resolutions pertaining to this bill, but because it would benefit
veterans and their family members, the DAV has no objection to its
favorable consideration.
Section 601 would authorize the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (CAFC) to review and set aside changes to the VA Schedule for
Rating Disabilities found to be arbitrary and capricious or clearly in
violation of statutory provisions. Under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 502, CAFC may
review challenges to VA's rulemaking. Section 502 exempts from judicial
review actions relating to the adoption or revision of the VA Schedule
for Rating Disabilities, however. Formulation of criteria for
evaluating reductions in earning capacity from various injuries and
diseases requires expertise not generally available in Congress.
Similarly, unlike other matters of law, this is an area outside the
expertise of the courts. Unfortunately, without any constraints or
oversight whatsoever, VA is free to promulgate rules for rating
disabilities that may not fall within the broad parameters of 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 1155. Therefore, the CAFC should have jurisdiction to review and
set aside VA changes or additions to the rating schedule when they are
shown to be arbitrary and capricious or clearly violate basic statutory
provisions. Section 601 would grant the CAFC such authority; therefore,
the DAV supports this provision.
Section 602 would eliminate the rounding down of COLAs for the
rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities
and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the
survivors of certain disabled veterans. As mentioned previously in this
statement with regard to S. 243, COLA increases normally require that
each partial dollar amount increased shall be rounded to the next lower
whole dollar amount. The DAV has testified for the past several years
that continually rounding down the adjusted rates to the next lower
dollar amount will gradually erode the value of benefits and they will
not keep pace with the rise in the cost of living. Rounding down
veterans' cost-of-living adjustments unfairly targets veterans for
convenient cost savings for the government. As such, the DAV supports
section 602 and we urge the Committee to eliminate the rounding down of
the COLA.
Section 603 would establish a clinical information data exchange
bureau that facilitates data between the DOD and VA health systems.
Recently, there has been a great deal of effort to develop proposals to
promote VA/DOD initiatives within the medical care arena. The IB
believes DOD and VA must continue to develop electronic medical records
that are interoperable. Better coordination of the two electronic
medical record systems will afford the opportunity to see tangible
initiatives of VA/DOD programs. It will also expedite the handling of
patient information especially in the transition of the patient from
the DOD system to the VA system. Section 603 is consistent with the
recommendation of the IB on this issue, and the DAV supports its
favorable consideration.
Section 604 would require VA and DOD to conduct a joint study
regarding the interoperability of their respective disability rating
systems. This provision would seek to address a longstanding problem in
the military disability evaluation system. Injured servicemembers, are
routinely denied benefits to which they are entitled. This occurs
primarily because some military services consistently underrate the
severity of those disabling conditions found to render the
servicemember unfit for further service. Military services do not
adhere to the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities as required by
chapter 61 of title 10 United States. The DAV asserts that this statute
and the ruling by the U.S. Court of Claims in John F. Hordechuck vs.
The United States (U.S. Ct. Cl. 492, 1959) make it clear that DOD must
use the VA schedule as its standard for rating disabilities. While
section 604 of this bill would be a step toward resolving this problem,
the DAV encourages the Committee to consider legislative action to
eliminate any ambiguity on this issue. Such legislation should make it
unmistakably clear that: (1) there is only one rating schedule, the one
adopted by the VA, and that DOD does not have authority to modify that
schedule; and (2) that decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims interpreting the rating schedule must also be followed by DOD.
Section 701 would increase the amount of automobile assistance
allowance for disabled veterans. The VA provides certain severely
disabled veterans grants for the purchase of automobiles or other
conveyances. This grant also provides for adaptive equipment necessary
for safe operation of these vehicles. This program also authorizes
replacement or repair of adaptive equipment. To restore the
comparability between the cost of an automobile and the allowance, the
allowance, based on 80 percent of the average new vehicle cost, would
be $22,484. Section 701 would increase the amount to this level, and it
would provide for an automatic annual COLA. This provision is
consistent with the recommendation of the IB on this issue, and the DAV
supports its favorable consideration.
Section 702 would change the law to permit refund of an
individual's MGIB contributions when his or her discharge was
characterized as general or under honorable conditions because of minor
infractions or inefficiency. This provision is consistent with the
recommendation of the IB on this issue, and the DAV supports its
favorable consideration.
draft bill
This draft bill would make permanent authority for the VA to
furnish government markers for graves of veterans buried in private
cemeteries. While the DAV has no resolution on this issue, the bill
would accomplish a beneficial purpose, and we certainly have no
objection to its passage.
the servicemembers' cellular phone contract
fairness act of 2007
This draft bill would allow servicemembers who must relocate for
military reasons to terminate cellular phone contracts without penalty.
While the DAV has no resolution on this issue, the bill would
accomplish a beneficial purpose, and we certainly have no objection to
its passage.
the veteran's outreach improvement act of 2007
This legislation would direct the VA to establish procedures for
effective coordination of outreach activities between the various
offices and administrations within VA. It would also authorize the VA
to make grants to state veteran agencies for state and local outreach
services.
The DAV understands the importance of reaching out to veterans to
inform them of benefits to which they may be entitled, and expends
considerable resources in this regard. Both the DAV Veterans'
Information Seminar program and the DAV Mobile Service Office (MSO)
program are designed to educate disabled veterans and their families on
veterans' benefits and services. In both programs, highly trained
members of DAV National Service Officer Corps provide service deep
within veterans' communities across the country to counsel and assist
veterans in completing applications for benefits from the VA and other
government agencies.
While outreach is important, we believe a higher budget priority
for VA is to decrease the number of backlogged VA compensation claims.
Therefore, the funding that would be authorized by this bill for
outreach would be better utilized if it was put toward a program that
would help reduce the backlog. For instance, the Benefits Delivery at
Discharge (BDD) is a program that assists servicemembers at
participating military bases with development of VA disability
compensation claims prior to release from active duty. The discharge
physical is conducted under VA disability examination protocols either
by VA medical staff, contract medical examiners or military personnel.
BDD fosters a seamless transition from the military to the VA system
and accelerates claims for compensation. In summary, the DAV does not
oppose this bill, but we would prefer to see additional funding
directed toward the more urgent need for resources within the VA claims
processing system.
draft bill
This draft bill would make veterans diagnosed with Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder eligible for hospital care, medical services, and
nursing home care, despite insufficient medical evidence to conclude
that such disability may be associated with military service. It would
also assess the feasibility of making grants available to legal service
organizations to assist servicemembers and veterans in obtaining pro
bono legal representation to ensure they receive health care, benefits
and services. The DAV supports these provisions. While we do not
recognize a widespread need for legal representation for veterans
seeking health care, we do acknowledge that pro bono legal
representation could be beneficial to a large number of veterans
seeking benefits. Accordingly, the DAV has recently entered into an
agreement with LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP, under which DAV and
the firm will coordinate to provide pro bono legal services to
servicemembers going before formal physical evaluation boards in
Washington, DC. The DAV hopes to conclude a similar agreement with
another large firm in the near future. The goal of this effort is to
ensure that every servicemember who desires the assistance of an
attorney while the servicemember is proceeding through the military
disability evaluation system in Washington, DC, is provided that
assistance at no cost. The DAV believes that similar efforts can, and
should, be organized in other cities without the need to expend public
funds. There are many veterans' service organizations, and attorneys
have an obligation to perform pro bono service. DAV believes that large
numbers of attorneys will welcome the opportunity to complete that
obligation by serving veterans.
closing
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the DAV appreciates the
opportunity to present our views on these bills. We look forward to our
continued work with the Committee to serve our Nation's disabled
veterans and their families.
__________
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Akaka
to Brian Lawrence, Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled
American Veterans
Question. What are the top five legislative priorities of the
Disabled American Veterans?
Response. As you requested during the hearing, I have provided the
following list of issues the DAV believes should be considered priority
subjects.
claims backlog
Despite ongoing efforts to reduce the unacceptably large claims
backlog, C&P has been unable to gain ground on its pending claims.
Experience has shown that this problem has persisted primarily because
of inadequate resources compounded by higher claims volumes. The VA
needs to be provided with adequate resources that will allow it to hire
enough employees to clear the mountain of backlogged claims. The VA
also requires resources to establish and improve training programs to
enable newly hired personnel to absorb the tremendous volume of
information contained in the laws, regulations, and court decisions
affecting veterans' claims. Lastly, VA must hold its employees
accountable for quality and accuracy in their work. DAV has long
stressed quality over quantity; mere completion of a large number of
claims decisions is ineffective if many of them must be reworked. It is
more important to do the work right the first time. It is paramount
that substantial measures be taken immediately to fix the backlog in
claims processing before the system collapses under its own weight. To
solve the claims backlog problems, VA must have:
Adequate staffing levels and resources.
Congress should authorize 10,675 total full time
employees for VA Compensation and Pension Service for Fiscal
Year 2008.
Comprehensive training programs to enable claims
processing personnel to make accurate decisions.
Accountability for the accuracy of claims decisions.
Quality control measures should be established for each
individual making claims decisions.
repeal the attorney provision
The DAV is deeply concerned that allowing fee-charging lawyers and
agents into the VA claims process will profoundly change the system to
the detriment of veterans and other claimants. We believe there is
potential wide-ranging unintended consequences. Beyond the cost to
veterans, added administrative costs for VA are likely to be
substantial, without commensurate advantages. It is reasonable to
expect that this provision will negatively impact productivity in the
claims adjudication process and further bog down an already overloaded
system, and will eventually lead to the need for even more increases in
VA staffing. For example, VA will have the responsibility of oversight
and administration of fee agreements, but no consideration has been
given by either Congress or the VA regarding the amount of monetary or
human resources that will be necessary to perform these functions.
Lawyers and agents must not be allowed to charge fees for
assisting veterans with VA disability claims.
The provision in S. 3421, Public Law 109-461, which allows
lawyers and agents to charge such fees, must be repealed.
assured funding for va health care
The DAV firmly believes that service-connected disabled veterans
have earned the right to VA medical care through their extraordinary
sacrifices and service to our Nation. Year after year the DAV has
fought for sufficient funding for VA health care but despite our
efforts, the cumulative effects of insufficient funding have resulted
in the rationing of health care. VA reports that it has reached
capacity at many of its health care facilities.
The funding for VA health care is a discretionary program. The DAV
believes that making such funding mandatory would ensure the government
meets its obligation to provide health care to service-connected
disabled veterans by eliminating the year-to-year uncertainties about
funding levels that have prevented VA from being able to adequately
plan for and meet the growing number of veterans seeking treatment.
Funding for VA health care should be transferred from the
discretionary budget and appropriations process and made mandatory.
concurrent receipt
Recent laws have been enacted to phase in a new benefit and
incrementally eliminate the unfair law that bans concurrent receipt of
career retirement pay and VA disability compensation. However, only
career retirees who are at least 50 percent disabled are eligible. The
DAV believes an unfair law should also be repealed for everyone
affected by it; there should be no eligibility criteria, based on a
veteran's level of disability, to determine entitlement to justice.
Something unfair to a veteran who is 50 percent disabled, is equally
unfair to a veteran with a 40 percent disability. The attempt to
partially and incrementally correct the unfair offset has also led to
the creation of a hodge-podge of programs with different eligibility
criteria. Besides giving rise to much confusion, each new program has
created unforeseen inequities that required further corrective actions.
The complexity and vagueness of these programs have undoubtedly added
to the costs of administration.
Congress should take steps to fully repeal the unfair
prohibition on the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA
disability compensation for all disabled career military retirees.
restore market value of disabled veterans'
readjustment benefits
Specially Adapted Housing/Auto Grants
In addition to compensation, the VA provides special benefits to
accommodate a veteran or servicemember with severe disabilities that
resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated during active
military service. Such benefits include grants for housing and home
adaptation, and grants for the purchase of an automobile and automobile
adaptive equipment. VA currently provides specially adapted housing
grants of up to $50,000 to veterans with service-connected disabilities
consisting of certain combinations of loss or loss of use of
extremities and blindness or other organic diseases or injuries.
Veterans with service-connected blindness alone or with loss or loss of
use of both upper extremities may receive a home adaptation grant of up
to $10,000.
Increases in these grants have been infrequent, although associated
costs rise continually. Unless the amounts of the grants are
periodically adjusted, inflation erodes the market value and
effectiveness of these benefits. Congress should increase the value of
these programs and provide for automatic adjustments annually.
Congress should increase the automobile grant amount from
$11,000 to an amount based on the average new vehicle cost.
Congress should increase specially adapted housing grants.
The current $50,000 grant should be increased to $60,000, and the
current $10,000 grant should be increased to $12,000.
service disabled veterans insurance (sdvi)
Disabled veterans have historically found difficulty obtaining life
insurance or they are charged higher premiums for life insurance on the
commercial market. Congress therefore created the SDVI program to
furnish disabled veterans life insurance at standard rates. When this
program began in 1951, its rates, based on mortality tables then in
use, were competitive with commercial insurance. Commercial rates have
since been lowered to reflect improved life expectancy shown by current
mortality tables. VA continues to base its rates on mortality tables
from 1941 however. Consequently, SDVI premiums are no longer
competitive with commercial insurance and therefore no longer provide
the intended benefit for eligible veterans.
Also, when life insurance for veterans had its beginnings in the
War Risk Insurance program, first made available to members of the
Armed Forces in October 1917, coverage was limited to $10,000. Today,
more than 88 years later, maximum coverage under the base SDVI policy
is still $10,000. Given that the annual cost of living is many times
what it was in 1917, the same maximum coverage well over three quarters
of a century later clearly does not provide meaningful income
replacement for the survivors of service-disabled veterans.
Congress should enact legislation to authorize VA to
revise its premium schedule for SDVI to reflect current mortality
tables.
Congress should enact legislation to increase the maximum
protection under base SDVI policies to at least $50,000.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.
Mr. Norton?
STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, USA (RET.), DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA
Colonel Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
Members of the Committee, for this opportunity to appear before
you today on behalf of the Military Officers Association of
America. I also want to say it is good to see you, Senator
Webb, having worked for you at the Pentagon back in the last
millennium.
Senator Webb. If I may, Mr. Chairman, for a moment. It is
really great to see Colonel Norton. He worked on my staff when
he was a wet-behind-the-ears major and I was a wet-behind-the-
ears Assistant Secretary of Defense many years ago. He did some
terrific work on the IRR, which I think we paid off over the
past couple of years. It is good to see you.
Colonel Norton. Thank you, Senator.
MOAA is very grateful, Mr. Chairman, for the growing
bipartisan interest in upgrading educational benefits for our
Nation's returning warriors. I will focus my remarks on this
issue.
First, to put the GI Bill in context, there have been no
substantive improvements in most of the GI Bill programs since
prior to 9/11. Two exceptions are the commendable increases in
survivors' and dependents' educational benefit rates, including
extending the usage time line for survivors out to 20 years
after the death of the military member. Accelerated benefits
for high-technology courses is also a very useful improvement.
Most Americans and perhaps many of the troops may not know
that for Guard and Reserve veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan,
the only veterans benefit denied them is access to their
educational benefits after they complete their service. Let me
repeat, the only veterans benefit denied Guard and Reserve
active duty veterans of the War on Terror is the Montgomery GI
Bill. The Nation has now called 600,000 citizen warriors since
9/11 and 85,000 have served two or more tours. When it is time
for these volunteers to be discharged or retire from the
Reserve forces, they get not a single penny of their Montgomery
GI Bill benefits earned in service to the Nation as a
readjustment benefit.
One example of this inequity is the experience of the 39th
Brigade Combat Team of the Arkansas Army National Guard. It
returned from Iraq in 2005 and has been alerted for
redeployment again this year. That is a rotation pace that
exceeds many active Army units. Not only will these veterans
not be able to use their benefits when they get out, they can't
even earn more GI Bill entitlement during their second or
future call-ups in the National Guard.
There are many other Guard and Reserve units also facing
second and third tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are
similarly situated. They cannot earn additional Montgomery GI
Bill entitlement and they cannot access these benefits after
they separate from the Reserve forces.
The sad reality, Mr. Chairman, is that our warrior citizens
can't access these benefits unless they agree to remain in the
service. Active duty service men and women don't have such
golden handcuffs on their GI Bill benefits. They can use them
on active duty or when they become veterans. Reservists can
only use theirs if they agree to remain in the service. There
is no readjustment benefit for Reservists under the GI Bill.
MOAA strongly supports some progress on GI Bill benefits
this year. In the context outlined above, we are particularly
supportive of the provision in Senator Webb's S. 22 that
permits Guard and Reserve veterans to aggregate multiple active
duty service toward entitlement to the GI Bill. The cost of war
should not overlook the service and sacrifice of all of our
veterans.
MOAA also endorses Senator Craig's bill that would expand
accelerated benefits for short job-related courses and
establish buy-up provisions for the Reserve and survivor
programs. Unfortunately, for Guard and Reserve veterans of Iraq
and Afghanistan, they would have no access to such benefits
when they get out of the service.
We also think Senator Cantwell's bill to create lifetime
entitlement under the Montgomery GI Bill has merit. In our
view, however, the first order of business needs to be
establishment of a readjustment benefit for active duty service
of our Guard and Reserve veterans. They have earned these
benefits in harm's way and they deserve no less.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Norton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colonel Robert F. Norton, USA (Ret.), Deputy
Director, Government Relations, Military Officers Association of
America
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, on behalf
of the nearly 362,000 members of the Military Officers Association of
America (MOAA), I am honored to have this opportunity to present the
Association's views on legislative proposals being considered before
you today.
MOAA is an original founding member of the Partnership for
Veterans' Education, a consortium of military, veterans, and higher
education groups which advocate for passage of a ``total force''
approach to the Montgomery GI Bill to meet the needs of our operating
forces--active duty, National Guard and Reserve--in the 21st century.
MOAA does not receive any grants or contracts from the Federal
Government.
executive summary
MOAA appreciates the growing interest in Congress in improving
educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) for our
Nation's returning warriors. Legislative proposals range from modest
improvements at the margins to restoration of a ``World War II-style''
GI Bill that would cover all costs of a veteran's education or training
plus a living-expense stipend.
MOAA certainly supports almost all of these proposals. The question
is how will the Committee and this Congress ``rack and stack'' them
given other competing priorities and direct spending realities.
In addressing these questions, MOAA recognizes that all good things
are not going to happen in one session of Congress. In our close
collaboration with the 45 associations that make up the Partnership for
Veterans' Education, MOAA believes that the following priorities should
inform the work of the Committee on the MGIB. In order:
1. Establishment of a readjustment benefit under the MGIB for Guard
and Reserve veterans of the War on Terror. This is the only veterans'
benefit denied returning Guard and Reserve warriors. (S. 644 addresses
this gross inequity.)
2. Integration of the Reserve MGIB programs with active duty
provisions in Title 38 and establishment in law of a principle that
benefits should be proportional to length and type of duty performed
(e.g., buy-up provisions for Guard and Reserve participants, etc. would
follow).
3. Benchmarking MGIB rates to the average cost of a 4-year public
college or university education, including restoration of proportional
parity between active and Selected Reserve rates.
4. Improvement in the flexible delivery of MGIB benefits such as
accelerated payments (see #2).
5. Elimination of the $1200 payroll reduction for active duty
service entrants.
6. Extension of time-limits toward the goal of lifetime learning
for remaining MGIB entitlement.
From this perspective, MOAA is pleased to offer our views on the
legislation being considered by the Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs today.
This testimony focuses on legislation before the Committee that
concerns educational benefits for members of the armed forces,
including National Guard and Reserve servicemen and women, veterans and
survivors.
Denial of a Core Veterans' Benefit to Operational Reservists'
National Guard and Reserve servicemen and women who have been
called into Federal service on active duty in the War on Terror are
entitled to all veterans' benefits upon completion of their service
with one glaring exception: a readjustment benefit under the Montgomery
GI Bill (MGIB).
Since, September 11, 2001, approximately 600,000 Guard and Reserve
veterans have served on active duty. Contingency operation service
enables them to access VA health care, apply for service-connected
disabilities, VA home loans, and other benefits authorized in law.
About 85,000 have served multiple combat tours.
The Defense Department's ``operational reserve'' policy means that
reservists can expect to serve on active duty multiple times during a
normal 20 to 30-year Guard or Reserve career. DOD now plans to activate
reservists 1 year out of 5 years for 12 months per tour. However, with
85,000 members of the reserve forces have already served two or more
tours since 9/11 and more units slated for re-deployment, ``operational
reservists'' are deploying at or above active duty force rotations.
When Guard and Reserve veterans complete these commitments, the one
benefit denied them is to access Montgomery GI Bill benefits under
Chapter 1607 of Title 10 U.S. Code after they are discharged or retire.
There is no MGIB readjustment benefit available to reservists who
have served the Nation on active duty.
MOAA and our colleagues in the Partnership for Veterans' Education
are deeply committed to righting this fundamental injustice. The
Partnership for Veterans' Education includes the 35 members of The
Military Coalition (which includes MOAA, the VFW and AMVETS), other
major veterans' service organizations and higher education
associations.
It is in this context that MOAA is surprised and disappointed that
the Committee is not including consideration of S. 644 (Senators
Lincoln [D-AR] and Collins [R-ME]) at this hearing. In our view, S. 644
directly concerns the jurisdiction of this Committee in that a
fundamental purpose of the bill is to integrate the two Reserve MGIB
programs into Title 38 so that, going forward, educational benefits can
be properly scaled according to the length and type of duty performed
by members of the Nation's total force team--active duty, National
Guard, and Reserve.
Unfortunately, the Nation's total force military policy is not
matched by educational benefits programs that maximize MGIB purposes,
namely, support for recruitment, reenlistment, and readjustment.
From this perspective, MOAA is pleased to respectfully offer its
views on some of the bills before the Committee at this hearing.
S. 22 (Revised), Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007
(Webb)
Senator Webb's (D-VA) bill, S. 22, would in effect re-establish and
enhance the post-World War II ``GI Bill'' of educational benefits.
S. 22 would establish ``wartime'' service GI Bill benefits that
would permit servicemen and women who serve or have served since 9/11
and who meet the requisite active duty service requirements in the
legislation to be reimbursed for the entire cost of a college,
university, or training program of their choice.
Reimbursement rates would match the cost paid by non-veterans at
such programs. Additionally, veterans would receive a $1,000 per month
stipend for 36 months, matching the maximum entitlement reimbursement
period. Veterans would have up to 15 years after their service to
exhaust entitlement. The existing bar to duplication of benefits would
preclude paying other MGIB benefits concurrently.
National Guard and Reserve ``wartime'' veterans with qualifying
active duty service would be entitled to the benefits described in the
bill.
MOAA Comment on S. 22
MOAA supports S. 22. S. 22 represents a vision, perhaps even a GI
Bill ``holy grail,'' that our Nation's warriors surely have earned in
service to the Nation. We worry, however, that absent a strong signal
of support from this Committee and the full Senate and House, the
likelihood of this bill's passage is remote at best.
MOAA has long supported many of the features in S. 22, especially:
the increase in GI Bill benefit rates, the elimination of the $1,200
payroll reduction, extension of the post-service usage period, and
establishment of a readjustment benefit for mobilized reservists.
However, based on the fact that the last substantive upgrades to the
MGIB-Active Duty program were enacted before 9/11, stakeholders must
wonder if there is genuine resolve to upgrade the MGIB.
MOAA's approach on military and veterans benefits is to work with
Congress to find realistic ways to make progress on military and
veteran people' issues that support a strong national defense, military
readiness, and fair treatment of those who have worn the uniform of the
country. Sure, MOAA would prefer to have all the features of S. 22 and
all at once. Our experience has shown that Congress rarely acts that
way.
For many years and over the course of many sessions of Congress,
retired Ranking Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Lane
Evans--a distinguished Vietnam veteran--sponsored legislation similar
to S. 22. Unfortunately, none of his bills attracted enough support to
gain serious consideration.
A practical shortcoming in S. 22 is the absence of MGIB ``kicker''
authority for the military services--Section 3015(d), 38 U.S. Code. DOD
has long used financial incentives--``kickers''--as tools to distribute
military manpower into high demand skills needed for readiness. Kickers
have proven very effective in combination with the MGIB-AD (Chapter 30)
to support Armed Forces recruiting goals.
It may be that the quantum leap in GI Bill benefits under S. 22
would suffice for overall recruiting purposes, obviating the need for
``kickers.'' Manpower planners, however, probably will be extremely
reluctant to test this theory.
If forced to choose, we believe the most glaring inequity that
needs to be addressed immediately in GI Bill legislation is the absence
of a readjustment benefit under the MGIB for activated reservists.
S. 1293, the Veterans' Education and Vocational Benefits Improvement
Act of 2007 (Craig)
Senator Craig's draft bill has two broad features. It would
temporarily expand the payment of accelerated benefits under the MGIB
during the period between October 2008 and September 2012. Eligible
participants would receive accelerated benefits for short term, high
cost courses, not just ``high technology'' coursework as currently
authorized.
Accelerated payments would be available to participants in the MGIB
Active Duty (Chapter 30), MGIB Reserve Programs (Chapter 1606 and
Chapter 1607, 10 U.S. Code), and Survivors and Dependents Educational
Assistance (Chapter 35). Each program would have an annual expenditure
cap ranging from $3 million for MGIB-AD, $2 million for MGIB-Selected
Reserve (Chapter 1606), and $1 million each for the Reserve Educational
Assistance Program (REAP) (Chapter 1607), and Survivors and Dependents
(Chapter 35).
The second feature would establish the opportunity for members of
the Guard and Reserve to ``buy up'' their benefits under REAP. They
could contribute up to $600 in $20 increments in order to receive an
additional $150 per month in MGIB benefits.
MOAA supports the greater flexibility envisioned in the accelerated
payment provisions. As a practical matter, the annual expenditure caps
may substantially limit participation in the program, given the tens of
thousands of MGIB users.
The ``buy up'' feature proposed for REAP confirms our view that the
Reserve MGIB programs are not properly synchronized with basic benefits
under Chapter 30. The reality is that there have been no adjustments to
the reserve MGIB programs since the late 1990s, other than annual
COLAs.
MOAA appreciates the intent and direction of the buy-up provisions
in the bill and we endorse its provisions.
A hopefully unintentional consequence of the proposed REAP buy-up
provision is that returning Guard and Reserve warriors who honorably
complete their service and separate or retire, would not be authorized
access to their buy-up benefits under REAP following service. Again,
there is no readjustment benefit under law for Guard and Reserve
veterans. All such benefits are forfeited upon honorable completion of
service resulting in discharge or retirement.
Veterans who elect to increase their REAP accounts can only use
them if they agree to remain in the Guard or Reserve. The buy-up
provision comes with ``golden handcuffs.'' In our view, our All
Volunteer Force should be structured under the principle of willing
service. Active duty servicemembers have readjustment benefits under
the MGIB, but operational reservists returning from war zones do not.
MOAA does not support separate treatment of active duty veterans
and Guard/Reserve active duty veterans in terms of access to their
earned MGIB benefits. Any Guard or Reserve veteran with REAP
entitlement who elects buy-up, would forfeit all such benefits at
separation.
MOAA recommends that the REAP buy-up provision be authorized in
conjunction with post-service access to those benefits.
Toward a Total Force MGIB for the 21st Century
MOAA appreciates the growing interest in adapting and improving
MGIB programs to fit the needs of the 21st century force. Numerous
Senate and House bills address various facets of the MGIB.
MOAA believes that the first priority in creating a more effective
MGIB is to evaluate proposals against the principle of aligning
benefits with the length and type of duty performed by members of our
Nation's Armed Forces team--active duty, National Guard and Reserve. In
short, a ``total force'' approach is needed for the MGIB.
In achieving this objective--an objective we believe will better
accomplish recruitment, reenlistment, and readjustment purposes--MOAA
strongly endorses as a first order of business two affordable steps.
First, all active duty and reserve MGIB programs would be
consolidated under Title 38. DOD and the Services would retain
responsibility for cash bonuses, MGIB ``kickers'', and other
enlistment/reenlistment incentives. Second, MGIB benefit levels would
be structured according to the level of military service performed.
The Total Force MGIB would restructure MGIB benefit rates as
follows:
Tier one, the Active Duty MGIB (Chapter 30, Title 38)--
initially, no statutory change. Individuals who enter the active Armed
Forces would earn MGIB entitlement unless they decline enrollment.
Tier two, the Selected Reserve MGIB (Chapter 1606, Title
10)--MGIB benefits for a 6-year enlistment or reenlistment the Guard or
Reserve. Chapter 1606 would transfer to Title 38. Congress should
consider adjusting benefit rates in proportion to the active duty
program. Historically, Selected Reserve benefits have been 47-48
percent of active duty benefits.
Tier three, Reserve Educational Assistance Program
(Chapter 1607, Title 10),--MGIB benefits for mobilized members of the
Guard/Reserve on ``contingency operation'' orders. Chapter 1607 would
transfer to Title 38 and be amended to provide mobilized servicemembers
one month of ``tier one'' benefits (currently, $1,075 per month) for
each month of activation after 90 days active duty, up to a maximum of
36 months for multiple call-ups.
A servicemember would have up to 10 years to use remaining
entitlement under Tier One or Tier Three programs upon separation or
retirement. A Selected Reservist could use remaining Second Tier MGIB
benefits only while continuing to serve satisfactorily in the Selected
Reserve. Reservists who qualify for a reserve retirement or are
separated/retired for disability would have 10 years following
separation to use all earned MGIB benefits. In accordance with current
law, in cases of multiple benefit eligibility, only one benefit would
be used at one time, and total usage eligibility would extend to no
more than 48 months.
MGIB-SR Benefit Upgrades Ignored by DOD/Services Since Prior to 9/11
For the first 15 years of the Reserve MGIB program's existence,
benefits earned by individuals who initially join the Guard or Reserve
for 6 years or who reenlist for 6 years, paid 47 cents to the dollar
for active duty MGIB participants. Since 9/11, however, the ratio has
dropped to 29 cents to the dollar. One consequence of the rate drop is
that reservists feel their service is devalued. The following chart
illustrates the sharp decline in rate parity since 9/11.
Montgomery GI Bill Program Benefit History--Full Time Study Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected
Active Duty Reserve
Month Year Chapter 30 ($) Chapter 1606 (in percent)
($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July............................................ 1985 $300.00 $140.00 47
1986 300.00 140.00 47
1987 300.00 140.00 47
1988 300.00 140.00 47
1989 300.00 140.00 47
1990 300.00 140.00 47
October......................................... 1991 350.00 170.00 49
1992 350.00 170.00 49
April........................................... 1993 400.00 190.00 48
October......................................... 1994 404.88 192.32 48
October......................................... 1995 416.62 197.90 48
October......................................... 1996 427.87 203.24 44
October......................................... 1997 439.85 208.93 48
October......................................... 1998 528.00 251.00 48
October......................................... 1999 536.00 255.00 48
October......................................... 2000 552.00 263.00 48
November........................................ 2000 650.00 263.00 40
October......................................... 2001 672.00 272.00 40
December........................................ 2001 800.00 272.00 34
October......................................... 2002 900.00 276.00 31
October......................................... 2003 985.00 282.00 29
October......................................... 2004 1,004.00 288.00 28.6
October......................................... 2005 1,034.00 297.00 28.6
October......................................... 2006 1,075.00 309.00 28.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guard and Reserve Warriors are Denied Veterans' Benefits Under REAP
Certain MGIB benefits are earned by mobilized reservists who serve
the Nation on active duty for at least ninety days during a national
emergency under contingency operation' orders. The REAP (Chapter 1607,
10 U.S. Code) benefit package was cobbled together with little
consultation/coordination with the Departments of Defense and Veterans
Affairs, and other stakeholders. For example, the benefit rate
structure is based on an administratively cumbersome percentage of
active duty MGIB Chapter 30 benefits. Ironically, substantial benefits
are awarded after 90 days service, but no post-service access to those
benefits is authorized. Clearly, the principle of scaling benefits
proportional to service performed was not used in fashioning REAP.
The Total Force MGIB would address these concerns by establishing
in law month-for-month entitlement to active duty MGIB benefits
(Chapter 30). With enactment of a portability feature for earned REAP
benefits, the program ultimately would be fairer to all members of the
force and serve as an incentive for continued service in the Guard or
Reserves.
A restructured REAP would support DOD policy of calling up the
``operational reserve'' for no more than 12 months per tour every 5 or
6 years. The proposal would enable a G-R member to potentially acquire
full MGIB entitlement after 36 months aggregate service on contingency
operation orders. Presently, Chapter 1607 benefits are awarded only for
a single tour of active duty. Additional service offers no additional
benefit, even though over the course of a 20-year Guard or Reserve
career, reservists will serve multiple tours of active duty. Under the
Total Force MGIB, the more one serves the more MGIB entitlement is
earned.
A key feature of S. 644 is that reservists mobilized for at least
90 days under Federal contingency operation orders would have access to
use remaining REAP benefits after separation. That is, they would be
entitled to post-service readjustment benefits under the MGIB.
America's volunteer military--active duty and reserve component--
become veterans when they complete their active duty service
agreements. For mobilized reservists, when they return from an active
duty call-up (under contingency operation orders) they are veterans,
and no American would dispute that fact, no less their sacrifice. Why
then should they be treated as second-class citizens for purposes of
the MGIB? If an active duty member who serves 2 years on active duty
and one tour in Iraq may use MGIB benefits for up to 10 years after
leaving service, do we not owe equal treatment to a Guard or Reserve
member who serves 2 or more years in Iraq over a period of 6 or 8 years
of Guard/Reserve service?
DOD's own survey of reserve component members (DOD Status of Forces
Survey, November 2004) indicates that ``education'' is not a key
component in extension or reenlistment decisions. Moreover, a
reenlistment or extension decision enables the servicemember to retain
original Reserve MGIB benefits (currently, Chapter 1606) as well as the
potential to earn more active duty MGIB entitlement through successive
call-ups. That's not possible under the REAP program today. Reservists
who choose to remain in the Selected Reserve and are subsequently
activated would earn one month of active duty MGIB benefits for every
month mobilized, up to 36 months of benefits, under the Total Force
MGIB proposal. Under S. 644, they would still have up to 12 months
remaining usage under Chapter 1606, since current law allows dual-
benefit accrual up to 48 months maximum entitlement. In short, there is
a built-in incentive to continue serving in the Selected Reserve
because of the potential to earn more MGIB entitlement under S. 644.
MOAA strongly supports enactment of S. 644 to consolidate military/
veteran MGIB programs in Title 38 and align benefit rates according to
the length and type of service performed, a Total Force MGIB.
S. 1261, Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007 (Cantwell)
Senator Cantwell's bill, S. 1261, would repeal the 10-year
limitation on post-service usage of the MGIB-AD (Chapter 30) and the
14-year in-service usage limitation on the MGIB-SR (Chapter 1606, 10
U.S. Code). The elimination of the MGIB-SR time limit may help to
encourage overstressed Guard and Reserve members with remaining
entitlement to extend their reserve component service.
MOAA supports this legislation. Establishment of a lifetime
learning benefit for unused MGIB-AD benefits is a worthy goal. However,
if forced to choose, MOAA believes this legislation must rank
considerably below other issues outlined in this Statement for
reforming and re-structuring the MGIB for our Nations's forces.
S. 1215, State Approving Agencies (SAA) Funding and for Other Purposes
(Akaka)
Chairman Akaka's (D-HI) bill, S. 1215, would raise the cap on SAA
funding so that these offices can more effectively provide essential
services to veterans seeking educational and training opportunities in
the states. The bill also extends the current rates of payment for
veterans who are enrolled in an apprenticeship or other on-the-job
training program. As a result, more veterans of the War on Terror will
be able to pursue training for an occupation or profession. SAAs are
the vital link for effective oversight of the GI Bill at the state
level. MOAA supports S. 1215.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted By Hon. Daniel K. Akaka to
Colonel Robert F. Norton, USA (Ret.), Deputy Director, Government
Relations, Military Officers Association of America
Question. What are the top five legislative priorities of the
Military Officers Association of America?
Response. The top legislative priorities of the MOAA are:
1. Fully fund the VA health care system to meet rising demand for
VHA services from Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Recommendation is
consistent with the report of the President's Task Force to Improve
Health Care Delivery for our Nation's Veterans (2003) that the VA
health system should be fully funded by ``using a mandatory funding
mechanism, or by some other changes in the process to achieve the
desired goal.'' MOAA recommends the goal can be achieved by funding the
VA to meet its own published access standards.
2. Seamless Transition/Wounded Warrior Care. MOAA recommends that
Congress establish a separate Federal agency responsible for overseeing
development and implementation of ``seamless transition'' objectives
including a joint, bidirectional DOD-VA electronic medical record;
improved care, rehabilitative services and research for Traumatic Brain
Injury (TBI) and PTSD; a ``one-stop'' separation physical that meets
DOD-VA requirements; a single disability determination process at
separation or retirement from military service.
3. Improve VA disability claims system quality, processes, and
timeliness. As of mid-February 2007, the backlog of VA claims was
626,429 according to the VA. At year's end, total claims for disability
and education will reach or exceed 800,000. MOAA supports additional
resources to hire and train new claims adjudicators along with
investment in techology upgrades, training, process improvement and
quality control.
4. ``Total Force'' Montgomery GI Bill for the 21st century.
Educational benefits for active duty and Reserve component
servicemembers do not match the greater demands of their service and
sacrifice, nor have benefits kept pace with the cost of education. MOAA
recommends restructuring Montgomery GI Bill programs according to the
length and type of duty performed by all servicemen and women. Benefits
for active duty service should accrue on a month-for-month basis (after
90 days) for activated National Guard/Reserve servicemembers including
aggregation of entitlement on a month-for-month basis for multiple
callups. MGIB educational reimbursement rates for full-time study
should match the cost of an education at the average four-year public
college/university as measured by Department of Education data.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much.
Mr. Petkoff?
STATEMENT OF ALEC S. PETKOFF, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, VETERANS
AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION
Mr. Petkoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. I would just like to say this is my first time
before this Committee and I feel very honored to be part of
this process. Thank you very much.
I want to thank you for allowing me to testify today on the
proposed legislation before us on behalf of the American
Legion. The American Legion commends the Committee for holding
the hearing to discuss these important and timely issues.
It is of the utmost importance to the United States that we
ensure that veterans are never forgotten, marginalized, or left
to slip through the cracks of a grateful Nation's bureaucratic
good intentions. Flag waving and lip service do not qualify as
a job well done when it comes to the serious needs of veterans
and their
dependents.
It was George Washington who said that the willingness with
which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no
matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how
they perceive veterans of early wars are treated and
appreciated by our Nation.
The hurt and pain and troubles that often accompany
veterans and their families after they leave service are varied
and often severe. The American Legion again applauds this
Committee for presenting legislation on these timely issues. I
will now try to take some time to comment on some of the
proposed legislation before the Committee today.
I would first like to comment kind of jointly on Senator
Cantwell's bill, S. 1261, the Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act
of 2007, and Senator Webb's legislation, S. 22, the Post-9/11
Veterans Education Assistance Act of 2007. The American Legion
supports the passage of major enhancements to the current
Montgomery GI Bill. We note that the current make-up of the
operational military force requires that adjustments be made to
support all Armed Forces servicemembers.
The American Legion applauds S. 22 in that it allows for
members of the Armed Services to receive enhanced educational
benefits more in line with today's needs. Enactment of this
bill will greatly increase the recruitment and retention
ability of the branches of the Armed Services. While this
legislation is aimed toward the active duty force, the American
Legion supports legislation that will allow Reservists to earn
credits for education when mobilized, just as active duty
troops do, and then use them after they leave the military
service.
The Montgomery GI Bill for Life aims to repeal all
timeliness to use the Montgomery GI Bill. This is a step in the
right direction and we support the measures that would be
enacted. In addition to the positive measures that the bill
encompasses, the American Legion feels that all veterans be
treated equally regardless of their Reserve or National Guard
status in such that an individual who is called to duty and
served honorably should not have to remain in the selected
Reserve to use their earned benefits. We support legislation
that would allow all Reservists and National Guard members to
use their MGIB benefits, to include the Reserve Educational
Assistance Program, known as REAP, for up to 10 years after
separation regardless of disability status or if their
enlistment contract expires.
I would also like to quickly comment on Senator Feingold's
legislation that would improve the outreach activities of the
Department of Veterans Affairs. The American Legion believes
that proper and thorough outreach is essential to ensuring this
Nation's veterans and their dependents are fully informed and
aware of all these benefits to which they may be entitled to
receive based on their honorable military service to our
Nation. Our one concern is that the bill does not address
veterans who are living in rural areas. We want to make sure
that they would also be, I guess, accounted for and make sure
that they are aware of all the benefits, as well.
The American Legion looks forward to working with this
Committee to ensure that veterans and veterans families are
receiving the care and attention they have earned and that a
grateful Nation should gladly give.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to comment on
the proposed legislation and I will be glad to answer any
questions the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Petkoff follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alec S. Petkoff, Assistant Director, Veterans
Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion
Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion's
views on the bills being considered by the Committee today. The
American Legion commends the Committee for holding a hearing to discuss
these important and timely issues.
s. 117, the ``lane evans veterans health and benefits improvement act
of 2007''
The American Legion supports the intent of Section 104 and Title II
of S. 117. Specifically concerning Title II of the bill, The American
Legion is in support of tracking veterans who serve in the Global War
On Terrorism (GWOT) in a new databasese. This bill would make data on
these veterans more accessible upon request. GWOT veterans require
their own system, since the exposures and experiences they encountered
are different from veterans of the first Gulf War. GWOT veterans
experience more combat time, multiple deployments, continuous urban
warfare, blast traumas and more women have participated. The veterans
of the 1991 Gulf War experienced widespread oil well fires, possible
nerve agent exposure and a shorter combat time.
This bill also addresses the need to differentiate veterans who
served in OIF and OEF, those who served in both and those who served in
neither. The environmental exposures may differ and the combat
experiences may differ. The American Legion suggests that under the
Health, Counseling and Related Benefits section (section 3), the
conditions should also be tracked according to whether the veteran
served in OIF, OEF or both or in neither--not just by inpatient
outpatient status. This would show if any trends in illness are
developing among the groups. It should also show a breakdown by gender.
s. 168, ``a bill to direct the secretary of veterans affairs to
establish a national cemetery for veterans in the pikes peak region of
colorado''
While the American Legion is not for or against the building of a
national cemetery in Pikes Peak, CO, The American Legion supports the
establishment of additional national and state veterans cemeteries and
columbaria wherever a need for them is apparent. As such The American
Legion supports the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) in
completing its goals set forth in the ``Millennium Act'' and in Public
Law (P.L.) 108--109. NCA has successfully established the cemeteries
set forth in the ``Millennium Act'' and has received authorization for
Fiscal Year 2008 for the six cemeteries to be constructed in accordance
with P.L. 108-109.
s. 225, ``traumatic injury benefits''
S. 225 seeks to enlarge the group of those who, while on active
duty status from October 7, 2001 through November 30, 2005, suffered a
traumatic injury and associated covered loss, and under certain
conditions of service qualified for retroactive benefits payments under
the Traumatic Injury Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (TSGLI)
program, as initially established by P.L. 109-13 in 2005, by
eliminating the original legislation's requirement that only those
traumatic injuries and losses occurring from service directly in
Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom would qualify for such
retroactive benefits. S. 225 would open this group to include all
servicemembers on active duty status during the retroactive period,
regardless of where the traumatic injury occurred. The Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) has issued a Final Rule to its Code of Federal
Regulations, as published in the Federal Register of March 8, 2007,
that for purposes of TSGLI payments servicemembers did not have to
actually be insured under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
(SGLI) program in order to be eligible for this benefit. Therefore,
were S. 225 to be enacted into law as currently presented, all such
servicemembers, insured under SGLI or not, who suffered a qualifying
loss during the stated retroactive period, would be eligible for
payment of TSGLI benefits.
The American Legion supports the intent of S. 225. It has always
been the position of The American Legion that veterans' benefits
entitlements should apply equally to all those in service on active
duty. Military servicemembers serve under the command of their
respective service departments and it is not their prerogative to
determine the location of such service and the duties assigned. Such
service and duties may very well be located well outside a combat
theater of operations, but it is military service to the Nation
nonetheless, and the nature of such military service often exposes
members to hazard of life and limb. The American Legion does not
support the creation of different classes of veterans for purposes of
different levels or types of veterans' benefits. We believe therefore
that S. 225 should proceed successfully and be enacted into law.
s. 423, the ``veterans' compensation cost-of-living adjustment act of
2007''
S. 423 will increase, effective as of December 1, 2007, the rates
of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and
the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of
certain disabled veterans. The amount of increase shall be the same
percentage as the percentage by which benefit amounts payable under
title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et. seq.) are
increased effective December 1, 2007.
The American Legion supports this annual cost-of-living adjustment
in compensation benefits, including dependency and indemnity
compensation (DIC) recipients. It is imperative that Congress annually
considers the economic needs of disabled veterans and their survivors
and provide an appropriate cost-of-living adjustment to their benefits,
especially should the adjustment need to be higher than that provided
to other Federal beneficiaries, such as Social Security.
s. 526, the ``vet act''
The American Legion supports the provisions of S. 526. Increasing
the educational benefit available through the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB)
will provide a better incentive to veterans to complete a program with
immediate employment results, without the concern of going in to short-
term debt. The American Legion supports granting a veteran the option
to request an accelerated payment of all monthly educational benefits
upon meeting the criteria for eligibility for MGIB financial payments.
The selection of courses veterans undergo remain exclusively the
decision of the individual veteran. All earned veterans' education
benefits should be made available to veterans in support of their
endeavors. Accelerated payments allow veterans to achieve their
education goals in the manner that they decide. Binding the time frame
of an education payout may restrict educational options for some
veterans.
In addition to the traditional institutions for higher learning,
MGIB benefits can be used for training at Non-College-Degree
Institutions, On-the-Job or Apprenticeship Training, Independent, and
Distance or Internet training. The MGIB also allows VA to reimburse
veterans for the fees charged for national tests for admission to
institutions of higher learning and national tests providing an
opportunity for course credit at institutions of higher learning.
Examples of tests covered are SAT, GRE, CLEP, GMAT, LSAT, etc. The MGIB
for veterans, and not those eligible under Survivors and Dependents
Educational Assistance (DEA), is available for Flight Training and
Correspondence Training.
The significance of expanding the scope of accelerated payments is
that the preceding categories are eligible for MGIB payments, yet
excluded from accelerated payments. The American Legion recommends that
all MGIB-approved courses, including the On-the-job-training (OJT) and
Apprenticeship courses, become eligible for accelerated payments.
s. 643, ``service-disabled veterans insurance''
This bill would increase the amount of supplemental life insurance
offered under the VA's Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance (SDVI)
program from its present $20,000 maximum to a $40,000 maximum.
VA's SDVI program provides life insurance coverage for veterans who
are rated service-disabled by the VA, and who apply within two years of
their last VA rating for a new disability, and who are in good health
except for their service-connected disabilities. The program is
essentially divided into two parts: Basic SDVI coverage with a maximum
face value of $10,000 and a provision for a disability waiver of
premiums if the insured is unable to follow any substantially gainful
employment due to a disability beginning before age 65, and
supplemental SDVI with a maximum coverage of $20,000 and no provision
for a disability waiver of premiums. Supplemental SDVI has stringent
eligibility requirements in that a service-disabled veteran must have a
basic SDVI policy in force, must qualify for a disability premium
waiver on it, must be under age 65 at time of application, and must
apply within one year of being advised of the approval of the
disability premium waiver on the basic SDVI policy. These requirements,
which are in addition to the already strict requirements for basic
SDVI, naturally greatly limit participation in Supplemental SDVI
coverage.
As a further consideration, SDVI premium rates, which are the same
per $1,000 of coverage per month for both basic SDVI and supplemental
SDVI, are quite expensive as they are based on a long outdated 1941
insurance industry mortality table. VA has proposed on several
occasions that these premium rates be set by an updated current
mortality table, such as the 2001 or 2003 edition, thereby reducing
these premium rates by an average of 30 percent to 40 percent, but such
has not yet met with congressional approval. With the majority of
applicants for SDVI coverage being currently from the Vietnam era
(though an increasing number of veterans with service from the 1980s to
1990s are being seen), these premium costs can be very significant,
especially since most insured veterans pay their premiums out of their
VA disability compensation.
An increase of supplemental coverage to a new maximum of $40,000
would bring the overall possible SDVI coverage for totally disabled
veterans to a total of $50,000, taking into consideration basic SDVI as
well. This $50,000 overall coverage figure has appeared in regards to
enhancing SDVI, and continues to appear, for several years now in
various combinations. Though such a proposed coverage increase is a
positive step to attaining a much needed enhancement to the SDVI
program, it remains far below, for example, the $400,000 coverage
maximum figure afforded to new and recent insured veterans under the
Veterans' Group Life Insurance program, and should not be regarded as a
final long term solution. A congressionally initiated comprehensive
private sector study of VA benefits for survivors of veterans with
service-connected disabilities, completed in May 2001 (The Program
Evaluation of Benefits for Survivors of Veterans with Service-Connected
Disabilities), concluded that significant increases in the SDVI
coverage amounts were fully warranted.
Relatively few disabled veterans who are insured under the basic
SDVI program, and who are totally disabled for insurance purposes, and
under age 65, actually apply for and maintain supplemental coverage due
to its high premium cost. Of these, a large percentage take out only
half the maximum, or $10,000, coverage, again due to the high premium
costs. Therefore, an enhancement to SDVI which consisted solely of an
increase in supplemental coverage may actually have little impact on
the severely (by definition) disabled veterans in this group and
provide a very limited benefit to the whole. The increased coverage
benefit would mainly accrue to those relative few able to afford the
much higher premiums, and to those in near-term life threatening
situations at the time the option to purchase supplemental coverage is
available, and who make application within the one year supplemental
coverage eligibility period.
The American Legion believes that a much more equitable approach to
enhancing VA's SDVI program, and of much greater benefit to these
service-connected disabled veterans, would be to increase the maximum
amount of coverage under the program's basic insurance portion, with
its provision for a disability waiver of premiums, and to increase the
supplemental coverage maximum as well. If an overall coverage maximum
of $50,000 were the goal, an increase of basic coverage to $20,000 or
$25,000, and supplemental coverage to a maximum of $30,000 or $35,000,
would be much more beneficial to program insured veterans than an
increase in supplemental coverage alone. Such would be a significant
step to meeting the proven insurance needs of the most severely
disabled veterans.
In conclusion, while The American Legion agrees with the basic
intent of this legislation, for the reasons stated previously,
attention should be given to a more equitable division in this
insurance increase between basic and supplemental SDVI. Barring this,
we feel that at the least the premium rates for supplemental SDVI
coverage should be based on a more updated insurance industry mortality
table than the obsolete 1941 table currently in use.
s. 698, the ``veterans survivors education enhancement act of 2007''
As this legislation was not received in time for us to thoroughly
review, The American Legion defers comment and respectfully requests
the Committee to allow us to submit for the record at a later date.
s. 847, ``to extend the period of time during which a veteran's
multiple sclerosis is to be considered to have been incurred in, or
aggravated by, military service during a period of war''
This bill would eliminate the current 7-year period after service
in which a wartime veteran must develop multiple sclerosis, in order
for it to be presumptively service-connected, and extend it
indefinitely so such a veteran would qualify for service-connection on
a presumptive basis if the disease developed anytime after the
veteran's separation from the military.
Multiple sclerosis is an autoimmune disease, the cause of which is
unknown, affecting the central nervous system. The American Legion
fully supports this legislation. Given the nature of this terrible
disease, elimination of a delimiting period for the establishment of
presumptive disability benefits is certainly warranted.
s. 848, the ``prisoner of war benefits act of 2007''
This bill would repeal the current requirement in Title 38, United
States Code (U.S.C.) that an individual had to have been detained or
interned for a period of not less than 30 days in order to be entitled
to presumptive service-connection for certain prisoner-of-war (POW)
diseases. It would also expand the list of POW diseases presumed to be
service-connected, currently set forth in Title 38, U.S.C. section
1112(b), to include diabetes Type 2 and osteoporosis. The legislation
would also specifically authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
create regulations adding or deleting diseases enumerated in section
1112(b), on the basis of sound medical and scientific evidence, to
include recommendations from VA's Advisory Committee on Former
Prisoners of War.
The issue of the welfare and well being of those veterans who have
endured the hardship and trauma of being held as a POW has long been
one of the major concerns of The American Legion. To ensure that the
Federal Government fulfills its obligation to these brave men and
women, The American Legion has actively supported improvements in
benefits provided to these individuals and their survivors. We are
pleased to support the addition of the two conditions, specified in
this bill, to the list of those currently presumed to be service-
connected. It is hoped this legislation will provide the impetus for
continuing action to further broaden the list of presumptive diseases
and disabilities, which former POWs are known to suffer from. Toward
this end, we are encouraged that the bill recognizes and emphasizes the
important role played by VA's Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of
War. This group of esteemed individuals, many of whom are themselves
former POWs, provide the necessary mechanism and forum to evaluate
scientific and medical studies on former POWs to make appropriate
recommendations to the Secretary regarding needed changes in VA's
outreach, benefits, and medical care program for this community of
veterans.
Additionally, The American Legion has long supported the
elimination of the arbitrary 30-day requirement for internment. Studies
have shown there can be long lasting adverse health effects resulting
from even a relatively short period of confinement as a prisoner of
war. Such findings are especially important considering the nature of
today's warfare and the rather short period of confinement most
American POWs have faced during the post-Vietnam era.
This legislation represents a solid step toward ensuring former
POWs receive the compensation and medical care to which they are
clearly entitled. However, in addition to those diseases that would be
presumed service-connected, The American Legion recommends that the
list also include chronic pulmonary disease, where there is a history
of forced labor in mines during captivity, and generalized
osteoarthritis, as differentiated from the currently listed disability
of post-traumatic osteoarthritis.
s. 961, ``belated thank you to the merchant mariners
of world warii act of 2007''
S. 961 would amend title 46, U.S.C., to provide benefits to certain
individuals who served in the United States merchant marine (including
the Army Transport Service and the Naval Transport Service) during
World War II. The benefit would be a special pension of $1,000 a month
to Merchant Mariners who served between December 7, 1941 and December
31, 1946, and their spouses.
Merchant Marines (Mariners) who served during the period from
December 7, 1941 through August 15, 1945 were granted veteran status by
the Civilian Military Service Review Board in January 1988. They were
issued a DD-214 from the Coast Guard and are entitled to the same
medical, disability, and burial benefits as other veterans.
The American Legion does not have an official position on this
legislation.
s. 1096, the ``veterans' housing benefits enhancement act of 2007''
The American Legion is pleased to support this pending legislation
that would allow the Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs
improve the housing arrangements to better suit the disabled veterans'
needs, with specific emphasis on severe burn injuries, and to
accommodate those veterans with severe burns. The American Legion
additionally applauds the intent of the legislation to assist disabled
veterans to receive adaptive equipment for automobiles.
The American Legion conveys that specially adaptive housing should
also include those veterans suffering from Traumatic Brain Injury
(TBI), and other debilitating injuries. We are also concerned with the
ambiguity of the term ``severe'' in that there are many different
levels of injury where a severe injury to one individual may not be as
severe to another.
s. 1163, ``blinded veterans paired organ act of 2007''
This bill would amend title 38, U.S.C., to improve compensation and
specially adapted housing for veterans in certain cases of impairment
of vision involving both eyes, and to provide for the use of the
National Directory of New Hires for income verification purposes.
Specifically, this bill would strike the word ``blindness'' in both
places it appears in section 1160(a)(1) of title 38, U.S.C., and
replace it with ``an impairment of vision.'' It would also establish
specific visual acuity levels constituting an ``impairment of vision''
under this section. The American Legion supports this portion of the
legislation as it is consistent with provisions of the Veterans
Benefits Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-330), which instituted similar changes
for hearing loss evaluations.
The American Legion also supports the changes to the visual
impairment requirements for specially adapted housing under section
2101 of title 38, U.S.C., as such changes conform to the visual
impairment changes in section 1160.
The American Legion has no position or comment on the portion of
this legislation pertaining to National Directory of New Hires.
s. 1215, ``to amend title 38, united states code, to extend and improve
certain authorities of the secretary of veterans affairs, and for other
purposes''
Section 1
The American Legion supports the provision that will maintain the
current level of funding for the State Approving Agencies at an annual
rate of $19 million.
The American Legion believes that honorable military service,
combined with improved education and vocational training opportunities,
enhances an individual, increases diversity, and betters society as a
whole. The education pillar is continuous and ever evolving.
Diminishment in support for education and ability to gain knowledge for
veterans will harm the Nation as a whole, decrease the ability to
recruit new servicemembers, and unfairly subject veterans to barriers
of benefits that they have earned.
State Approving Agencies are instrumental in the education process.
The American Legion fully supports all efforts to maintain and enhance
veterans' education benefits and recommends that State Approving
Agencies remain funded at $19 million.
Section 2
The American Legion supports the extension of the pilot project on-
training-on-the-job for claims adjudicators.
Section 4
The American Legion applauds the modification to create an
unemployment study on Global War on Terrorism era veterans, but we are
concerned with the exclusion of Vietnam era veterans. The American
Legion feels that veterans of the Vietnam era unemployment study
continue to be conducted in addition to a study on unemployment of
Veteran of the Global War on Terrorism.
Section 5
The American Legion supports the provisions that would extend the
rates of education benefits for Apprenticeship and On-the-Job-Training
from 2008 to 2010; however, we feel that this date should be extended
indefinitely.
s. 1261, ``the montgomery gi bill (mgib) for life act 2007'' and (s. 22
revised) the ``post-9/11 veterans educational assistance act of 2007
The American Legion supports passage of major enhancements to the
current All-Volunteer Force Education Assistance Program, better known
as the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). We note that the current make up of
the operational military force requires that adjustments be made to
support all Armed Forces members. The American Legion applauds S. 22 in
that it allows for members of the armed services to receive enhanced
educational benefits more in line with today's needs. Enactment of this
law will greatly increase the recruitment and retention ability of the
branches of the armed services. While this legislation is aimed toward
the active duty force, The American Legion supports legislation that
will allow Reservists to earn credits for education while mobilized,
just as active-duty troops do, and then use them after they leave the
military service.
The Montgomery GI Bill for life aims to repeal all time limits to
use the MGIB. This bill is a step in the right direction and we support
the measures that would be enacted. In addition to the positive
measures that the bill encompasses, The American Legion feels that all
veterans be treated equally regardless of their Reserve/National Guard
status in such that an individual who was called to duty and served
honorably should not have to remain in the selected reserve to use
their earned benefits. We support legislation that would allow all
Reservists and National Guard members to use their MGIB benefits, to
include the Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) for up to 10
years after separation regardless of disability status and if their
enlistment contract expires.
Under current law, members of the Reserve component face many
challenges in using the MGIB-SR benefits. Since September 11, 2001, the
utilizations of the Reserve components to augment the Active Duty Force
(ADF) presents complications for those members of the Guard and
Reserves enrolled in college programs. The uncertainty associated with
unit activations, lengthy activations, individual deactivations, and
multiple unit activations makes utilization of educational benefits
extremely difficult. Such decisions as whether to enroll for a
semester, long-range planning for required courses, or whether to
finish a semester are among the challenges confronted. Other factors
include accrued student loan debt, falling behind peers in studies, and
limbo status due solely to the military's indecision.
With the number of activations of the Reserve component since
September 11, 2001, these same Reservists, who are attending colleges
and universities around the country, are discovering that their actual
graduation date may be extended well past their initial anticipated
graduation date. It's also taking longer for students to graduate,
raising the overall cost of a college degree. The College Board, an
association composed of more than 5,200 schools, colleges,
universities, and other educational organizations, states that the
average public university student now takes 6.2 years to finish. They
also report that tuition and fees represent only a fraction of the
total cost of attending college. The overall cost (tuition, fees, room,
board, books, and including transportation) of a typical public college
is about $16,400 a year. (College Board)
In the 20 years since the MGIB went into effect on June 30, 1985,
the Nation's security has changed radically from a fixed cold war to a
dynamic Global War on Terrorism. In 1991, the Active-Duty Force (ADF)
of the military stood at 2.1 million; today it stands at 1.4 million.
Between 1915 and 1990 the Reserve Force (RF) was involuntarily
mobilized only nine times.
There is now a continuum of service for military personnel,
beginning with those who serve in the Reserve component only, extending
through those in the Reserve component who are called to active-duty
for a considerable period of time, and ending with those who enlist in
the ADF and serve for a considerable period of time. Since 9/11 more
than 600,000 members of the 860,000-member Selected Reserve have been
activated.
Today, approximately 40 percent of troops in Iraq are Guard
personnel or Reservists. Despite this, both the MGIB-AD and the MGIB-SR
still reflect benefits awarded 20 years ago with increases well behind
the annual educational inflation rate. The Reserve component members
rarely served on active duty at that time. The idea that any projection
of U.S. power would require the activation of at least some Reservists
was never considered in creating these programs.
According to the Fiscal Year 2007 MGIB pay rates, troops who serve
on active-duty three or more years can collect up to $1,075 a month for
36 months as full-time students totaling $38,700. That benefit is
available up to 10 years after discharge.
Reserve and Guard personnel can earn percentages of the full-time
active-duty rate depending on length of their mobilization. If they are
mobilized for 15 months--the average length of deployment--and then go
to school full-time they can only receive up to a maximum of $23,220
(FY 2007 rates) using their Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP)
benefits. However, they can collect only if they remain in a Guard or
Reserve unit. If they go into the inactive Reserve (Individual Ready
Reserve) or are discharged, they no longer are eligible for education
benefits.
The American Legion recommends that activated Reservists get one
month of benefits, at the active-duty rate, for each month of
mobilization up to 36 months and there should be no delimiting date for
use of the benefits from the last date of active or Reserve service.
The American Legion recommends that Congress move Montgomery GI
Bill-Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) from title 10, U.S.C., to title 38,
U.S.C., and that VA have administrative authority for both the MGIB and
the MGIB-SR. We recommend that the annual appropriations for the MGIB
and the MGIB-SR become one annual appropriation within the VA.
The American Legion supports the termination of the current
military payroll deduction ($1,200) required for enrollment in MGIB.
The American Legion supports eliminating the 10-year delimiting
period for veterans to use Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits and
support legislation that would allow all Reservists and National Guard
members to use their MGIB-SR benefits for up to 10 years after
separation.
The American Legion supports an MGIB-SR participant reimbursement
rate adjusted for time spent on Federalization activation, State
activation, and normal service for a period not to exceed 36 months is
created.
The American Legion recommends that the dollar amount of the
entitlement should be indexed to the average cost of college education
including tuition, fees, textbooks and other supplies for a commuter
student at an accredited university, college or trade school for which
they qualify and that the educational cost index should be reviewed and
adjusted annually.
The American Legion supports that a monthly tax-free subsistence
allowance indexed for inflation must be part of the educational
assistance package, The American Legion believes that if a veteran
enrolled in the MGIB program acquired educational loans prior to
enlisting in the Armed Forces, MGIB benefits may be used to repay
existing educational loans.
The American Legion supports that enrollment in the MGIB shall be
automatic upon enlistment. However, benefits will not be awarded unless
eligibility criteria have been met and if a veteran enrolled in the
MGIB becomes eligible for training and rehabilitation under Chapter 31
of title 38, U.S.C. In such a case, the veteran shall not receive less
educational benefits than otherwise eligible to receive under MGIB.
The American Legion supports that any veteran with 6 years of
service will be qualified to transfer education entitlements upon re-
enlistment for 4 years and to amend title 38, U.S.C., to restore the
reimbursement rate for correspondence and distance learning training to
90 percent of tuition.
s. 1265, the ``veterans mortgage life insurance eligibility expansion''
S. 1265 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 VA
for specially adapted housing, to include members of the military
service 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.
s. 1266, the ``veterans dignified burial assistance act of 2007''
This bills seeks to: increase the burial plot allowance from $300
to $400; repeal the time limitation for state filing of reimbursement
costs; and, modify the grants to state veterans' cemeteries for
operation and maintenance.
The American Legion strongly supports the portion of this bill that
would repeal the time limitation for state filing of reimbursement
costs for veterans who are interred in a private or state cemetery.
This portion of the legislation will assist in the location and burial
of cremated remains of veterans that go unclaimed for over two years as
well as give families more time in the grieving process as they will
not have to be concerned about deadlines in claiming these benefits.
The American Legion urges Congress to enact legislation that would:
1. Increase the burial allowance for veterans now eligible under
title 38, U.S.C., section 2302 and 2303 from $300 to $1,135.
2. Increase the burial allowance for veterans who died as a result
of a service-connected condition as set forth in title 38, U.S.C.,
section 2307 from $2,000 to $3,712.
3. That the burial plot allowance be increased from $300 to $670.
4. That VA be required to annually adjust burial allowances and
burial plot allowance for inflation by tying the increased allowances
to the Consumer Price Index.
The American Legion also has concerns with the provision that
allows state cemeteries to receive grants up to $5 million for
improvements to state cemeteries. The purpose of the State Cemetery
Grants program is to pay for the cost of establishing a state veterans'
cemetery that will then be maintained by the state and not the Federal
Government. States that ask for improvement money will be breaking
their obligation to maintain those cemeteries they agreed to be
responsible for. Funds for improvements would take money away form new
projects as well.
draft legislation, the ``disabled veterans insurance
improvement act of 2007''
This proposed bill is comprised of three separate veterans
insurance issues.
First, it would raise the maximum coverage in the Veterans'
Mortgage Life Insurance (VMLI) program from the current $90,000 up to
$200,000. The current maximum, established on December 1, 1992, covers
only approximately 64 percent of veterans' outstanding mortgage
balances; raising it to $200,000 would cover approximately 93 percent
of outstanding balances and accords with previous VA recommendations
that the coverage level be increased to keep pace with rising housing
costs. The American Legion supports this increase as one that is long
overdue and that is certainly justified by the obvious rise in housing
costs and values over the past fifteen years. However, we believe this
$200,000, which should be enacted into law, should only be regarded as
a starting point and that the VMLI coverage maximum should be tied to
an appropriate economic indicator to maintain a reasonable level of
coverage for the extremely disabled veterans in this group of insured
veterans.
Second, the bill introduces a major, long awaited, addition to the
VA's Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance benefit area in a proposal to
establish a Level Term Insurance program for disabled veterans with a
maximum face value coverage of $50,000.
This proposal again mirrors certain findings by the private sector
study on Program Evaluation of Benefits for Survivors of Veterans with
Service-Connected Disabilities, completed in spring 2001, which found
an enhancement was needed in insurance coverage options for veterans
with service-connected disabilities. The proposed legislation would
provide such veterans up to $50,000 Term insurance coverage on a level,
permanent premium basis up to age 70, at which point the amount of
insurance would reduce to 20 percent of the face value held, but which
would then be in a paid-up insurance state. A standard disability
waiver of premiums provision would also apply, and the aggregate of
service-disabled coverage held under all such programs would not exceed
$50,000.
Qualifying criteria would be the same as for the current SDVI
program, but with the added significant constraint of an overall
eligibility period of applying for such within 10 years of release from
active-duty, a period on principle chosen to orient this new program
wholly to the current generation of disabled veterans to lower program
costs, avoiding the need to offer coverage to older or even slightly
older disabled veterans, and which further reflects an assumption that
loss of insurability because of service-connected disabilities impacts
far more heavily on those in the younger age groups. We find both this
concept arguable and the 10-year time period to be nothing less than
arbitrary. In many, many cases service-connected disabilities, or
substantial increase in severity to them, arise more than 10 years
after service, and loss of insurability can impact just as heavily at
older ages as at younger one for many reasons as we all know well.
The American Legion has long been in favor of an enhancement to the
VA's SDVI program which would bring it into line with today's economic
realities. The standard SDVI maximum of $10,000 has long been
insufficient, and only the most disabled veterans under age 65 who
cannot follow gainful employment because of their disability qualify
for supplemental SDVI coverage, for which they must pay high premiums.
We feel this legislation to be a step in the right direction to
address the deficiencies of the present program, but we favor a more
extensive overall eligibility period than the 10 years after release
from active duty specified in the bill. We also believe that service-
connected disabled veterans who receive increases in their service-
connected disabilities, rather than only those who receive original
ratings for service-connection, should be eligible to apply for such
coverage and that such provision be extended to the regular SDVI
program as well. In connection with this, it has been our experience
that the present two-year eligibility period from the date of
notification of a rating is too restrictive and should be extended to a
more appropriate time period for all SDVI programs.
In a related area, this proposed legislation does not permit the
provisions of regular SDVI Gratuitous insurance to apply, retaining
that limit to $10,000 even for those veterans who would have qualified
for coverage under this new program. Gratuitous SDVI permits an
insurance settlement in cases where a veteran, otherwise eligible,
could not apply for SDVI because of a service-connected disability
rendering him or her mentally incompetent and hence unable to do so,
thus placing them on an even footing with other qualifying service-
connected veterans.
The American Legion believes the same principle should govern with
this new program. Beneficiaries of those deceased veterans who would
otherwise have qualified for insurance under this proposed legislation,
and also meet the rigorous criteria for Gratuitous insurance, should be
permitted the full $50,000 settlement. Given the rarity of such cases
we do not believe this should impact adversely on program costs to a
significant extent. Beneficiaries of those veterans meeting Gratuitous
insurance criteria outside the overall eligibility period eventually
chosen for this program (i.e., from date of release from service) for
such new coverage, where the veteran would have qualified only for
standard SDVI, would still be eligible for the regular $10,000
Gratuitous insurance. The SDVI programs would then be more consistent
in their application should this program proposal be enacted.
The American Legion is in full agreement with VA's proposal to
switch to the Commissioners 2001 Standard Ordinary Table of Mortality
for the determination of premium rates for this SDVI program, rather
than the outdated 1941 Table presently in use. It is neither sensible
nor fair to base premium rates for service-disabled veterans on
mortality tables over sixty-five years old, and long rendered obsolete
by changes in American living conditions and modern medicine, evident
to all. Such action constitutes a deliberate overcharging of disabled
veterans for their own benefits, and works to negate the original
intent of Congress in such programs.
The American Legion supports the proposal to add a new insurance
program for service-connected veterans, and strongly believes both the
new issue presently under consideration, hopefully with the adjustments
discussed previously, and the current SDVI program, are necessary to a
viable and proper set of benefits for our country's veterans who, as
recent experience has again shown, we continue to rely on in times of
recurring crisis.
Lastly, The bill would offer to those in the mobilization category
of the Reserves within the Individual Ready Reserve, the option to be
covered by Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI), instead of only
the option to be covered by Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI) as is
now the case. The American Legion supports this provision, which
corrects an omission in previous legislation. These individuals are in
an essentially on-call status because of their professional or
occupational specialties, and can be sent to active duty at any time.
The option to be insured under SGLI allows them access to dependent
coverage and to SGLI's much lower group premium rates. We believe this
addition to be correct and fully justifiable.
draft legislation, ``the veterans justice assurance act of 2007''
As this legislation was not received in time for us to thoroughly
review, The American Legion defers comment and respectfully requests
the Committee to allow us to submit for the record at a later date.
draft legislation, the ``veterans' education and vocational
benefits enhancement act of 2007''
The American Legion supports granting veterans the option to
request an accelerated payment of all monthly educational benefits upon
meeting the criteria for eligibility for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB)
financial payments. The selection of courses veterans undergo remain
exclusively the decision of the individual veteran, and all earned
veterans' education benefits should be made available to veterans in
support of their endeavors. Accelerated education payments allow
veterans to achieve education goals in the manner that they decide.
Binding the time frame of an education payout may restrict educational
options for some veterans.
In addition to the traditional institutions for higher learning,
MGIB benefits can be used for training at Non-College-Degree
Institutions, On-the-Job or Apprenticeship Training, Independent, and
Distance or Internet training. The MGIB also allows the VA to reimburse
veterans for the fees charged for national tests for admission to
institutions of higher learning and national tests providing an
opportunity for course credit at institutions of higher learning.
Examples of tests covered are SAT, GRE, CLEP, GMAT, LSAT, etc. The MGIB
for veterans, and not those eligible under Survivors and Dependents
Educational Assistance (DEA), is available for Flight Training and
Correspondence Training.
The significance of expanding the scope of accelerated education
payments is that the preceding categories are eligible for MGIB
payments, yet excluded from accelerated education payments. The
American Legion recommends that all MGIB-approved courses, including
the On-the-job training (OJT) and Apprenticeship courses, become
eligible for accelerated education payments.
The American Legion supports the expansion of P.L. 107-103 to
include but not limited to:
1. Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance (DEA, or Chapter
35).
2. Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP,
or Chapter 32).
3. Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP, or Chapter 1607).
Furthermore, The American Legion expressed that all active duty
time served, regardless of continuous or aggregate service, be applied
toward MGIB benefits at the active duty rate in tune with a month for
month benefit.
According to Fiscal Year 2007 MGIB pay rates, this bill would
provide an opportunity for REAP eligibles to ``buy-up'' to receive a
total of $860 per month times 36 months for full-time study totaling
$30,960 (title 10, Chapter 1607). However, a provision already exists
that if a servicemember has served 2 or more continuous years active
duty, they retain the option of buying the MGIB-AD (title 38, Chapter
30) with $1,200 and receiving a total of $38,700 in benefits.
Furthermore, the provision would force the veteran that enrolls to
remain in the selected reserve to use their benefits compared to the
current 10-year period following discharge an MGIB-AD participant could
use. It would create an unfair element to the veteran.
draft legislation, ``a bill to amend title 38, united states code, to
provide additional discretion to the secretary of veterans affairs in
contracting with state approving agencies, and for other purposes''
The American Legion has no position on accrediting courses.
draft legislation, ``comprehensive veterans benefits improvement act of
2007'' (titles ii-vi only)
As this legislation was not received in time for us to thoroughly
review, The American Legion defers comment and respectfully requests
the Committee to allow us to submit for the record at a later date.
draft legislation, ``a bill to amend section 2306 of title 38, united
states code, to make permanent authority to furnish government
headstones and markers for graves of veterans at private cemeteries,
and for other purposes''
The government furnished headstones and markers are a recognized
symbol of service and honor. The American Legion supports this
legislation that would make permanent the authority to furnish
government headstones and markers for graves of veterans at private
cemeteries.
draft legislation, ``servicemembers' cellular phone contract
fairness act of 2007''
This bill seeks to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to
provide relief for servicemembers with respect to contracts for
cellular phone services, and other purposes.
The American Legion supports this bill.
draft legislation, ``to amend title 38, united states code, to improve
the outreach activities of the department of veterans affairs (va), and
for other purposes''
The American Legion believes that proper and thorough outreach is
essential to ensuring this Nation's veterans and their dependents are
fully informed and aware of all of the benefits to which they may be
entitled to receive based on their honorable military service to our
Nation.
The American Legion supports the provisions of this bill that would
establish a separate account for the funding of outreach activities as
well as separate subaccounts for the funding of such outreach
activities pertaining to the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA),
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the National Cemetery
Administration (NCA). We also support the provision that would require
the Secretary to establish and maintain procedures for ensuring the
effective coordination of the outreach activities of VA between and
among the Secretary's office, Public Affairs, VBA, VHA, and NCA. The
aforementioned provisions would undoubtedly provide for better
accountability as well as help to ensure that VA's outreach activities
are conducted in a more efficient and systematic manner.
The American Legion supports the provision of this legislation
pertaining to cooperative activities with, and grants to, states to
accomplish the goal of improving outreach and assistance to veterans
and their family members who may be eligible to receive veterans or
veterans-related benefits (including benefits and services provided
under state veterans' programs). We are, however, concerned that the
scope of this provision is limited to or otherwise favors urban
locations or other areas with larger concentrations of veterans while
neglecting rural areas or locations with lower veteran populations. All
veterans, no matter where they live, deserve equal treatment and access
to information or assistance regarding the benefits and services to
which they may be entitled. Accordingly, we strongly encourage the
establishment or designation of rural veteran outreach coordinators to
ensure that veterans and their families residing in areas with low
veteran populations are not left out. We further recommend that an
oversight hearing be conducted to assess the overall effectiveness of
VA's outreach program, especially as it pertains to outreach and
dissemination to veterans living in rural areas.
draft legislation, ``iraq and afghanistan veterans mental health
and advocacy act of 2007
As this legislation was not received in time for us to thoroughly
review, The American Legion defers comment and respectfully requests
the Committee to allow us to submit for the record at a later date.
conclusion
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing The American Legion to
present comments on these important measures. We will provide the
Committee with additional views on those draft bills we did not have
time to thoroughly review. As always, The American Legion welcomes the
opportunity to work closely with you and your colleagues on enactment
of legislation in the best interest of America's veterans and their
families.
______
[Note: The following is an addendum to the prepared statement of
Alec S. Petkoff, which was submitted after the hearing.]
s. 698, the ``veterans survivors education
enhancement act of 2007''
S. 698 would expand the current benefit of survivors and dependents
educational assistance to an amount greater than the current value of
the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) education benefit. The aggregate amount
would become $80,000 compared to the current full time rate MGIB
benefit of $38,700.
The American Legion supports legislation in which the dollar amount
of the MGIB entitlement would be indexed to the average cost of college
education including tuition, fees, textbooks and other supplies for a
commuter student at an accredited university, college or trade school
for which they qualify and that the educational cost index be reviewed
and adjusted annually.
s. 1289, ``the veterans justice assurance act of 2007''
S. 1289 addresses concerns regarding The United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims. The American Legion has the following
positions on this bill:
Section 2. Repeal of Term Limits for Judges of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
The American Legion does not have an official position on this
provision.
Section 3. Increased Salary for Chief Judge of United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
The American Legion does not have an official position on this
provision.
Section 4. Provisions Relating to Recall of Retired Judges
of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
The American Legion supports the recalling of retired judges and we
agree with changes to this procedure as stipulated in this provision.
Section 5. Additional Discretion in Imposition of Practice
and Registration Fees.
The American Legion does not have an official position on this
provision.
Section 6. Annual Reports on Workload of United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
The American Legion supports this provision, which would require
the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims to submit annual workload reports to Congress. The information
provided in this report would be extremely beneficial in ensuring the
Court has adequate resources, including funding and personnel, as well
as ensure proper Congressional oversight of its activities.
Section 7. Report on Expansion of Facilities for United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
The American Legion does not have an official position on this
provision.
s. 1326, ``comprehensive veterans benefits
improvement act of 2007''
Title I. Health Care Matters
Section 101. Remove Government ban on enrollment of
Priority 8 veterans in the VA.
Background: In January of 2003 VA announced that it would
not allow Priority Group 8 veterans to enroll into the VA health care
system. Priority Group 8 veterans are those with no service-connected
disabilities or service-connected disabled veterans rate zero percent
(non-compensable) and with incomes higher than a geographically
adjusted threshold. The Administration justified this move on the
grounds that these are ``higher income'' veterans. The truth, however,
is that these veterans can make as little as $27,000 a year. VA
estimates that more than 1.5 million Priority Group 8 veterans will
have been denied enrollment in the VA health-care system by Fiscal Year
2008, not based on their military service, but simply on their
geographical residence.
This section would remove the government ban on enrollment
of Priority Group 8 veterans in the VA. This section is similar to S.
1147, introduced by Senator Murray.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Section 102. Addressing the misclassifications of Priority
Group 4 veterans, exempts them from copayments.
Background from the IB: ``Reports of catastrophically
disabled veterans being denied care still persist. VA has acknowledged
Public Law 104-262, which specifies that veterans who are receiving an
increased pension based on a need for regular aid and attendance or by
reason of being permanently housebound and other veterans who are
catastrophically disabled will be classified as enrollment Priority
Group 4. However, after 9 years, the Veterans' Health Administration
(VHA) has not developed a consistent and effective mechanism for
identifying eligible veterans and properly classifying them.''
(b) This section requires the VA to properly reclassify as
Priority Group 4's those misclassified veterans and provide them access
to related Priority Group 4 benefits.
(c) This section prohibits the collection of copayments and
other fees for hospital or nursing home care for veterans who are
catastrophically disabled.
The American Legion has no official position on this provision.
Section 103: Change in rules regarding access to non-VA
emergency services.
Background from the IB: ``The non-VA emergency medical care
benefit was established as a safety net for veterans who have no other
health-care insurance coverage and experience a medical emergency.
Under this benefit, VA will pay for services rendered to a veteran who
is found eligible and files a claim for payment for emergency treatment
received from a private facility. However, some veterans' claims are
denied payment due to the restrictive nature of the eligibility
criteria.''
This section eliminates the provision requiring veterans to
be seen by a VA health-care professional at least once every 24 months
to be eligible for non-VA emergency care service. The bill requires
only that the veteran be enrolled in VA health care to be eligible.
The American Legion has no official position on this provision.
Section 104: Lung cancer screening pilot program.
Background from the IB: ``The Department of Defense (DOD)
routinely distributed free cigarettes and included cigarette packages
in K-rations until 1976. The 1997 Harris report to the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) documented the higher prevalence of smoking and
exposure to carcinogenic materials among the military and estimated
costs to VA and TRICARE in the billions of dollars per year. For
example, the percentage of Vietnam veterans who ``ever smoked'' is more
than 70 percent, double the civilian ``ever smoked'' rate of 35
percent.''
This section requires that the Secretary of the VA carry
out a pilot program for screening of lung cancer in veterans and then
report to Congress on this pilot program and what actions Congress
should take to establish a permanent program. VA will work with the
International Early Lung Cancer Action Program and other public and
private entities to develop this pilot program.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Title II. Compensation and Pension Matters
Section 201: Full concurrent receipt.
Background: The Concurrent Receipt or Disabled Veterans'
Tax issue exists because of a 19th century law that required a dollar-
for-dollar offset of earned military retired pay by the amount of
awarded disability compensation received from VA. The American Legion
strongly believes retired pay is earned for a career of uniformed
service and VA disability compensation is recompense for pain,
suffering and lost future earning power due to service-connected
disabilities. For that reason veterans should receive both payments and
not have one offset the other.
This legislation would allow veterans to receive both
compensation/pension benefits and retired or retirement pay. This
section is similar to S. 439, introduced by Senator Reid.
The American Legion supports the complete repeal of the Disabled
Veterans' Tax for all service-connected disabled military retirees
awarded a VA disability rating regardless of their total service time
on active-duty or degree of disability.
Section 202: Increase in Special Monthly Compensation.
Background from the IB: ``The Department of Veterans
Affairs, under the provisions of title 38, United States Code, section
1114(k) through (s), provides additional special compensation to select
categories of veterans with very severe, debilitating disabilities,
such as the loss of a limb, loss of certain senses, and to those who
require the assistance of an aide for the activities of daily living,
such as dressing, toileting, bathing, and eating. . . . The payment of
special monthly compensation, while minimally adjusted for inflation
each year, is now no longer sufficient to compensate for the special
needs of these veterans.''
This section increases the special monthly compensation
under title 38, United States code, section 1114(l) through (s) by an
immediate 20 percent above the current base amount and additionally,
increases by 50 percent the current base amount of special monthly
compensation under title 38, United States Code, Section 1114(k).
The American Legion supports this provision.
Section 203: Presumption of service connected disability
for combat and military-work related hearing loss and tinnitus and
minimum hearing loss disability rating of 10 percent.
(a) Background from the IB: ``The VA Schedule for Rating
Disabilities does not provide a compensable rating for hearing loss at
certain levels severe enough to require hearing aids. The minimum
disability rating for any hearing loss warranting use of hearing aids
should be 10 percent, and the schedule should be changed accordingly.''
This section amends the Schedule for Rating Disabilities to
provide a minimum 10 percent disability rating for any hearing loss for
which the wearing of a hearing aid or aids is medically indicated.
(b) Background from the IB: ``Many combat veterans and
veterans that had military duties involving high levels of noise
exposure who now suffer from hearing loss or tinnitus likely related to
noise exposure or acoustic trauma during service are unable to prove
service connection because of inadequate testing procedures, lax
examination practices, or poor recordkeeping.''
This provision enacts a presumption of service-connected
disability for combat veterans and veterans who performed military
duties typically involving high levels of noise exposure and who
subsequently suffer from tinnitus or hearing loss of a type typically
related to noise exposure or acoustic trauma.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Section 204: Repeal the offset between dependency and
indemnity compensation and the Survivor Benefit.
Background: Under current law, the survivors of veterans
who die as a result of service-connected causes are entitled to
compensation known as dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC). In
addition, military retires can have money deducted from their retiree
pay to purchase a survivors annuity. This is called the Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP). However, if the military retiree dies from service-
connected causes his or her survivors will receive a SBP payment offset
dollar for dollar by the amount of the DIC payment they receive. Like
the offset between military retiree pay and VA disability payments,
this SBP/DIC offset unfairly denies beneficiaries the full amount of
two programs that are meant to compensate for different loses.
This section repeals the offset between dependency and
indemnity compensation and the Survivor Benefit Plan. This section is
similar to S. 935, introduced by Senator Bill Nelson.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Section 205: Authorize dependency and indemnity
compensation (DIC) eligibility at increased rates to survivors of
deceased military personnel on the same basis as that for the survivors
of totally disabled service-connected veterans
Background from the IB: ``Current law authorizes the
Department of Veterans Affairs to pay additional, enhanced amounts of
dependency and indemnity compensation, in addition to the basic rate,
to the surviving spouses of veterans who die from service-connected
disabilities, after at least an 8-year period of the veteran's total
disability rating prior to death. However, surviving spouses of
military servicemembers who die on active duty receive only the basic
rate of DIC.''
This section sets DIC eligibility at increased rates to
survivors of deceased military personnel on the same basis as that for
the survivors of totally disabled service-connected veterans.
The American Legion has no official position on this provision.
Section 206: Lower the existing eligibility age for
reinstatement of DIC to remarried survivors of service-connected
veterans, from 57 years of age to 55 years of age.
Background from the IB: ``Current law permits remarried
survivors of veterans who die from service-connected disabilities to
requalify for DIC benefits if the remarriage occurs at age 57 or older,
or if already remarried, they apply for reinstatement of DIC at age 57.
While The Independent Budget veterans service organizations appreciate
the action Congress took to allow this restoration of rightful
benefits, the current age threshold of 57 years is based on no
objective data related to this population or its needs. Remarried
survivors of retirees in other Federal programs obtain a similar
benefit at age 55.''
This section lowers the existing eligibility age for
reinstatement of DIC to remarried survivors of service-connected
veterans, from 57 years of age to 55 years of age.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Section 207: Effective date change for temporary total
compensation awards.
Background from the IB: ``An inequity exists in current law
controlling the beginning date for payment of increased compensation
based on periods of incapacity due to hospitalization or convalescence.
Hospitalization in excess of 21 days for a service-connected disability
entitles the veteran to a temporary total disability rating of 100
percent. This rating is effective the first day of hospitalization and
continues to the last day of the month of discharge from hospital.
Similarly, where surgery for a service-connected disability
necessitates at least one month's convalescence or causes
complications, or where immobilization of a major joint by cast is
necessary, a temporary 100 percent disability rating is awarded
effective the date of hospital admission or outpatient visit. Although
the effective date of the temporary total disability rating corresponds
to the beginning date of hospitalization or treatment, the provisions
of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5111 delay the effective date for payment purposes
until the first day of the month following the effective date of the
increased rating.''
This section amends the law to authorize increased
compensation on the basis of a temporary total rating for
hospitalization or convalescence to be effective, for payment purposes,
on the date of admission to the hospital or the date of treatment,
surgery, or other circumstances necessitating convalescence.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Section 208: Review of dependency and indemnity
compensation (DIC) program by GAO.
Background from the IB: ``The VA Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation program provides monthly financial support to the widow or
widower of a veteran who dies from a service-connected disability
(including the survivor of an active duty servicemember who dies while
still in military service). Historically, DIC was intended to enable a
survivor of a veteran to maintain a standard of living above the
poverty level that might have ensued because of the loss of a spouse's
life income and earning power. Current payment rates for DIC are set in
law, and generally the maximum monthly payment is limited to $1,033--
about 41 percent of the level of maximum service-connected disability
payment to a totally disabled veteran--and considerably less than
pensions paid to a survivor of a Federal retiree, which is set in law
at 55 percent of that Federal annuity. Because of inflation and other
economic factors, many widows (and some widowers) are in fact now
living in poverty due to lack of income other than DIC.''
This section requires the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to examine the VA's DIC program to ensure that current policy
adequately provides for the survivors of veterans (at a standard of
living above the poverty level) who died as a result of service-
connected disabilities and make legislative recommendations to Congress
to correct any inequities observed from such examination.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Title III. Insurance Matters
Section 301: Lower premiums for Service-Disabled Veterans
Insurance (SDVI) due to changed mortality rates.
Background from the IB: ``Because of service-connected
disabilities, disabled veterans have difficulty getting or are charged
higher premiums for life insurance on the commercial market. Congress
therefore created the SDVI program to furnish disabled veterans life
insurance at standard rates. When this program began in 1951, its
rates, based on mortality tables then in use, were competitive with
commercial insurance. Commercial rates have since been lowered to
reflect improved life expectancy shown by current mortality tables. VA
continues to base its rates on mortality tables from 1941, however.
Consequently, SDVI premiums are no longer competitive with commercial
insurance and therefore no longer provide the intended benefit for
eligible veterans.''
This section revises the premium schedule for SDVI to
reflect current mortality tables and increase the maximum protection
under base SDVI policies to at least $50,000 while allowing options for
the level of insurance veterans can choose from.
Sec. 301, S. 1326 looks to be the best of the several recent
legislative proposals for finally updating and enhancing the Service-
Disabled Veterans Insurance (SDVI) program. It takes the present SDVI
program and just raises the maximum coverage limit from the current
$10,000 to $50,000. It leaves the provision for a disability waiver of
premiums in place for those veterans unable to follow substantially
gainful employment due to their disabilities (for most these are
service-connected disabilities). It changes the long outdated mortality
table, upon which premiums are based, from the current 1941 table to
the 2001 table, which will lower premiums on average quite a bit (in
the 30-40 percent range) for all SDVI policyholders not on premium
waiver, and it permits veterans the option to have a mix of permanent
plans as well as Term coverage. (Permanent plans, while more expensive,
build loan and cash values.)
The bill would cap SDVI at $50,000 under any combination of SDVI or
Supplemental SDVI coverage. In fact, it effectively eliminates
Supplemental SDVI for new policyholders who qualify for disability
waiver of premiums since they would naturally go for the maximum for
free. However, the Supplemental SDVI program is of course still needed
since many would probably take out a lesser amount of coverage due to
premium costs (even with a new rate table being used). Should these
insured veterans become TD and qualify for a premium waiver at a later
date prior to age 65, when they may very well no longer be eligible for
new SDVI coverage, they may very much need and want Supplemental
coverage at that time.
The overly strict qualifying criteria are still maintained. That
is, a veteran must apply within two years of his or her last NEW
service-connected rating, and must be in good health except for
service-connected disabilities. While the good health criteria isn't
really arguable for this type of insurance, by definition, the two-year
period should be increased to at least five years (a large portion of
denials are because of a veteran being outside of the two-year period,
which is an arbitrarily derived one, of course). Also, increases in
service-connection ratings--the natural progression of such
disabilities--should be permitted as well for purposes of the
eligibility period. This is often when such veterans realize they need
coverage the most and, as in Compensation, recognition should be given
to this factor. Again, the NEW disability rule is an arbitrary one
designed to keep eligibility down for budget purposes. There is also no
provision for an open period of one or two years for those existing
SDVI insured veterans, who no longer would meet the eligibility
criteria for new SDVI coverage, to come in and apply for more coverage
should this initiative be passed.
The American Legion is concerned with a possible deletion of the
long-standing provision for Gratuitous SDVI in Title 38, Sec.
1922(b)(1). Due to the wording of S. 1326 (a)(1) and (2), there is
confusion as to whether this may delete Title 38 (b)(1) due to the
wording of the bill.
The American Legion certainly wishes the provision for Gratuitous
SDVI to remain, at least as it has been ($10,000) if it should not be
possible for it also to be included in the proposed $50,000 increase.
This provision entails relatively few cases annually (perhaps several
hundreds), but is very needful for those beneficiaries falling under
it. Gratuitous insurance is to permit an insurance settlement in cases
where a veteran is mentally incompetent from a service-connected
disability, and would qualify for SDVI, but died before being able to
make an application for it. The requirements, listed in Title 38,
1922(b)(1), are quite restrictive, so this does not impact much on the
overall budget. However, we feel this should remain as a matter of
equity and fairness for this class of service-connected veterans. The
provision has stood the test of time in this regard, has endured for
generations, and The American Legion should be most opposed to its
removal. We should bring it up only as a concern. Actually, as a matter
of equity, should the main intent of S. 1326 become law, the increase
to $50,000 should also apply to Gratuitous SDVI, as well as regular
SDVI, since in these cases it is virtually always that the veteran has
died from service-connected disabilities that also rendered him or her
mentally incompetent, and so unable to make decisions for benefits such
as insurance, plus the families involved are usually in the worst of
financial straits.
Title IV. Burial and Memorial Mmatters
Section 401: Increase in burial benefits.
Background from the IB: ``There has been serious erosion in
the value of burial allowance benefits over the years. While these
benefits were never intended to cover the full costs of burial, they
now pay for only a small fraction of what they covered in 1973, when
the Federal Government first started paying burial benefits for our
veterans.''
This section increases the plot allowance from $300 to $745
and expands the eligibility for the plot allowance for all veterans who
would be eligible for burial in a national cemetery, not just those who
served during wartime. This section also contains a provision to adjust
these payments annually.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Section 402: Increase in funeral and burial expenses.
Background from the IB: ``The nonservice-connected benefit
was last adjusted in 1978, and today it covers just 6 percent of
funeral costs. In the 108th Congress, the allowance for service-
connected deaths was increased from $500 to $2,000. Prior to this
adjustment, the allowance had been untouched since 1988. Clearly, it is
time this allowance was raised to make a more meaningful contribution
to the costs of burial for our veterans.''
The section increases the nonservice-connected benefit from
$300 to $1,270. This section then increases the service-connected
benefit from $2,000 to $4,100. This section also contains a provision
to adjust these payments annually.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Section 403: Authorize $37 million for State Cemetery
Grants Program.
Background from the IB: ``The State Cemetery Grants Program
(SCGP) complements the NCA [National Cemetery Administration] mission
to establish gravesites for veterans in those areas where the NCA
cannot fully respond to the burial needs of veterans. Several
incentives are in place to assist states in this effort. For example,
the NCA can provide up to 100 percent of the development cost for an
approved cemetery project, including design, construction, and
administration. In addition, new equipment, such as mowers and
backhoes, can be provided for new cemeteries. Since 1978, the
Department of Veterans Affairs has more than doubled acreage available
and accommodated more than 100 percent increase in burials.''
This section authorizes $37 million for the State Cemetery
Grants Program a $5 million increase over the FY07 level.
The National Cemetery Administration's request for $32 million
dollars for the current fiscal year is to be used to establish six new
cemeteries (Abilene, TX; Des Moines, IA; Glennville, GA; Fort Stanton,
NM; Missoula, MT; Williamstown, KY) and to expand four others
(Cheltenham, MD; Crownsville, MD; Jacksonville, NC; Kona Coast, HI).
Determining an ``average cost'' to build a new state cemetery or to
expand an existing one is very difficult. Many factors influence cost,
such as location, size and the availability of public utilities. Two
new state cemeteries planned for obligation in Fiscal Year 2007 are
Abilene, Texas ($7.1 million) and Des Moines, Iowa ($7.5 million).
While these awards may be delayed in being granted due to the states
not being ready to proceed with the construction of a new cemetery, The
American Legion would suggest that it is unwise to grant money on the
hopes that a state will not be able to accept the grant in a timely
fashion. Therefore, for the purpose of budgeting, the VA should assume
that grants will be awarded in a timely fashion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's budget The American
request for Fiscal Legion's Fiscal Year
Year 07 08 recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Grants for Veterans' $32 million......... $42 million.
Cemeteries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abilene, Texas.............. $7.1 million........ $7.1 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Des Moines, Iowa............ $7.5 million........ $7.5 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glennville, GA
Fort Stanton, NM
Missoula, MT
Williamstown, KY $17.4 million $27.4 million
(average dollars (average dollars
left per. left per
Cheltenham, MD project is $2.175 project is $3.425
million) million).
Crownsville, MD
Jacksonville, NC
Kona Coast, HI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By only budgeting for $4 million per project, The American Legion
predicts serious shortfalls in State Grant funding. After the Texas and
Des Moines' cemeteries are granted, an average of only $2.175 million
will be left for each of the eight other projects remaining. The only
way to avoid this funding shortage will be to hope that states are: not
ready to receive the money; take the money from other construction
needs in VA; or to delay the construction of these highly needed
cemeteries.
The American Legion recommends $42 million for the State Cemetery
Grants Program in Fiscal Year 2008.
title v. housing matters
Section 501: Increases housing grants and allowing
subsequent specialty adapted housing grants.
Background from the IB: ``VA provides specially adapted
housing grants of up to $50,000 to veterans with service-connected
disabilities consisting of certain combinations of loss or loss of use
of extremities and blindness or other organic diseases or injuries.
Veterans with service-connected blindness alone or with loss or loss of
use of both upper extremities may receive a home adaptation grant of up
to $10,000. . . . Increases in housing and home adaptation grants have
been infrequent, although real estate and construction costs rise
continually.''
This section increases the housing grant from $50,000 to
$60,000 and increases the amount of the home adaptation grant for
veterans with service-connected blindness or with loss or loss of use
of both upper extremities from $10,000 to $12,000. This section also
establishes a mechanism for periodic increases in this grant pegged to
a housing price index. This section also establishes a grant to cover
the costs of home adaptations for veterans who replace their specially
adapted homes with new housing.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Section 502: Increase the maximum coverage under Veterans
Mortgage Life Insurance (VMLI) from $90,000 to $150,000.
Background from the IB: ``The maximum VMLI coverage was
last increased in 1992. Since then, housing costs have risen
substantially. Because of the great geographic differentials in the
costs associated with accessible housing, many veterans have mortgages
that exceed the maximum face value of VMLI. Thus, the current maximum
coverage amount does not cover many catastrophically disabled veterans'
outstanding mortgages. Moreover, severely disabled veterans may not
have the option of purchasing extra life insurance coverage from
commercial insurers at affordable premiums.''
This section increases the maximum coverage under VMLI from
$90,000 to $150,000.
Title IV, Sec. 502 proposes raising the Veterans Mortgage Life
Insurance limit to $150,000 from the current $90,000. This is too low.
VA has looked for a $200,000 limit here for years, and the $200,000
limit (as a start) in Senator Akaka's bill (S. 1315, Sec. 2) is much
better. This would allow some 93 percent of outstanding mortgage
balances to be covered (presently it is 64 percent). We all know how
housing costs have gone in the past decade or so. The coverage limit
should actually start at $200,000 and be linked to some appropriate
economic market indicator.
Section 503: Full eligibility for VA Home loan guaranty
program for Selected Reserve forces.
Background from the IB: ``Various incentive, service, and
benefit programs designed a half century ago for a far different Guard
and Reserve philosophy are no longer adequate to address demands on
today's Guard and Reserve forces. Accordingly, steps must be taken by
Congress to upgrade National Guard and Reserve benefits and support
programs to a level commensurate with the sacrifices being made by
these patriotic volunteers. Such enhancements should provide Guard and
Reserve personnel a level of benefits comparable to their active duty
counterparts and provide one means to ease the tremendous stresses now
being imposed on Guard and Reserve members and their families, and to
bring the relevance of these benefits into 21st century application. .
. . With concern about the current missions of the Guard and Reserve
forces, Congress must take necessary action to upgrade and modernize
Guard and Reserve benefits, to include more comprehensive health care,
equivalent Montgomery GI bill educational benefits, and full
eligibility for the VA Home Loan guaranty program.''
This section gives Selected Reserve forces who have served
at least a year full eligibility to the VA Home loan guaranty program.
The American Legion does not have an official position on this
resolution ``Until the Gulf Era is ended by law or Presidential
Proclamation, persons on active duty are eligible for a home loan after
serving on continuous active duty for 90 days.''
Section 504: No increase in and return of funding fees for
home loan funding to the levels agreed before the 108th Congress.
Background from the IB: ``Congress initially imposed
funding fees upon VA guaranteed home loans under budget reconciliation
provisions as a temporary deficit reduction measure. Now, loan fees are
a regular feature of all VA home loans except those exempted. During
its first session, the 108th Congress increased these loan fees. The
purpose of the increases was to generate additional revenues to cover
the costs of improvements and cost-of-living adjustments in other
veterans' programs. In effect, this legislation requires one group of
veterans (and especially our young active duty military), those subject
to loan fees, to pay for the benefits of another group of veterans,
those benefiting from the programs improved or adjusted for increases
in the cost of living.''
This section returns the home loan funding fees to the
levels before the Veterans Benefit Act of 2003 (108th Congress).
The American Legion supports reducing or eliminating the funding
fee.
Title VI. Benefits Administration
Section 601: Revision of the power of the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit and of the Rules of the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims.
(a) Background from the IB: ``Under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 502, the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) may review directly
challenges to VA's rulemaking. Section 502 exempts from judicial review
actions relating to the adoption or revision of the VA Schedule for
Rating Disabilities, however. Formulation of criteria for evaluating
reductions in earning capacity from various injuries and diseases
requires expertise not generally available in Congress. Similarly,
unlike other matters of law, this is an area outside the expertise of
the courts. Unfortunately, without any constraints or oversight
whatsoever, VA is free to promulgate rules for rating disabilities that
do not have as their basis reduction in earning capacity. The co-
authors of The Independent Budget have become alarmed by the arbitrary
nature of recent proposals to adopt or revise criteria for evaluating
disabilities. If it so desired, VA could issue a rule that a totally
paralyzed veteran, for example, would only be compensated as 10 percent
disabled. VA should not be empowered to issue rules that are clearly
arbitrary and capricious.''
This section amends 38 U.S.C. Sec. 502 to authorize the
CAFC to review and set aside changes to the Schedule for Rating
Disabilities found to be arbitrary and capricious or clearly in
violation of statutory provisions.
(b) Background from the IB: ``The CAVC upholds Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) factual findings unless they are clearly
erroneous. Clearly erroneous is the standard for appellate court
reversal of a district court's findings. When there is a ``plausible
basis'' for a factual finding, it is not clearly erroneous under the
case law from other courts, which the CAVC has applied to Board of
Veterans' Appeals (BVA) findings.''
This sections amends 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7261 of title 38 United
States Code to provide that the court will hold unlawful and set aside
any finding of material fact that is not reasonably supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
The American Legion has no official position on this provision.
Section 602: Elimination of Rounding Down of Certain Cost-
of-Living Adjustments.
Background from the IB: ``Disability compensation and
dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) rates have historically
been increased each year to keep these benefits even with the cost of
living. However, as a temporary measure to reduce the budget deficit,
Congress enacted legislation to require monthly payments, after
adjustment for increases in the cost of living, to be rounded down to
the nearest whole dollar amount. Finding this a convenient way to meet
budget reconciliation targets and fund spending for other purposes,
Congress seemingly has become unable to break its recurring habit of
extending this round-down provision and has extended it even in the
face of prior budget surpluses. Inexplicably, VA budgets have
recommended that Congress make the round-down requirement a permanent
part of the law. While rounding down compensation rates for one or two
years may not seriously degrade its effectiveness, the cumulative
effect over several years will substantially erode the value of
compensation. Moreover, extended--and certainly permanent--rounding
down is entirely unjustified. It robs monies from the benefits of some
of our most deserving veterans and their dependents and survivors, who
must rely on their modest VA compensation for the necessities of
life.''
This section removes the round-down provisions for
dependency compensation and requires the payments to be made at the
full-calculated amounts.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Section 603: Creation of a Department of Veterans Affairs
and Department of Defense Joint Data Exchange Bureau to Improve Claims
Processing and Clinical Data Sharing.
One problem that currently exists between the VA and the
DOD is that they do not consistently use the same clinical vocabularies
and therefore clinical data exchange, which is so critical for both
effective healthcare and disability rating, has created longstanding
inefficiencies in both Departments. This exchange is particularly
important today because the DOD has begun to amass critical amounts of
data on servicemembers because of the deployment of DOD's new
electronic health record, as well as surveys that are now tracking
individuals' health at regular intervals over their service careers.
This section creates a joint VA-DOD Data Exchange Bureau to
establish technology and standards for clinical data recording and
sharing between the two agencies to improve healthcare delivery and
accuracy and speed of claims processing. This Bureau will establish an
ongoing mapping service that will ensure that data produced by clinical
software systems are understandable in both Departments. Importantly,
this Bureau is envisioned to produce mappings that are completely in
the public domain, which will ultimately encourage the commercial
sector to use the mappings as well. Ultimately, this will speed the
adoption of clinical data interoperability nationally, long understood
as a major impediment to the adoption of electronic health records and
their attendant promise of increased quality and cost savings.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Section 604: Joint study and report from the DOD and the
VA on automating the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating
Disabilities (VASRD).
Background: One of the most critical tools in the
disability ratings process is the Veterans Administration Schedule for
Rating Disabilities (VASRD). It is used by both the VBA and the
military services for rating disability claims. Given the size and
complexity of the rulesets inherent in the Schedule, many claims are
inaccurate, variable, and subject to appeal by veterans. There would be
tremendous value in getting a complete and standardized set of data on
each veteran, relevant to his or her particular problems, that can then
be linked to the relevant sections of the Schedule for more accurate
ratings, the same way, regardless of the skill of the rater.
This section requires the DOD and the VA to produce a joint
study on the interoperability of both of their current disability
rating systems and the feasibility and advisability of automating the
VASRD so as to improve the timeliness and accuracy of claims
processing. The report also requires the DOD and VA to produce
legislative proposals for achieving this goal and funding requirements.
The American Legion does not oppose the idea of such a study;
however, as the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission (VDBC) has
already commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a study
of the VASRD that will be addressed in the Commission's report and
recommendations to Congress and the President (due October 1, 2007), it
would be best to wait for the outcome of that study before mandating a
similar study.
Title VII. Other Benefits Matters
Section 701: Increasing specially adapted car grant/
conveyances/adaptive equipment, p. 16/17, IB
Background from the IB: ``The Department of Veterans
Affairs provides certain severely disabled veterans and servicemembers
grants for the purchase of automobiles or other conveyances. This grant
also provides for adaptive equipment necessary for safe operation of
these vehicles. Veterans suffering from service-connected ankylosis of
one or both knees or hips are eligible for only the adaptive equipment.
This program also authorizes replacement or repair of adaptive
equipment. Because of a lack of adjustments to keep pace with increased
costs, the value of the automobile allowance has substantially eroded
through the years. In 1946, the $1,600 allowance represented 85 percent
of average retail cost and a sufficient amount to pay the full cost of
automobiles in the ``low-price field.'' By contrast, in 1997 the
allowance was $5,500, and the average retail cost of new automobiles,
according to the National Automobile Dealers Association, was $21,750.
Currently, the $11,000 automobile allowance represents only about 39
percent of the average cost of a new automobile, which is $28,105.''
This section increases the automobile grant, the specially
adapted car grant, conveyances, and adaptive equipment grant from
$11,000 to $22,484 and adjusts this amount automatically each year
using an average retail car cost index established by the Secretary.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Section 702: Refund GI Bill contributions where under
general or honorable conditions discharge.
Background from the IB: ``The Montgomery GI Bill--Active
Duty program provides educational assistance to veterans who first
entered active duty (including full-time National Guard duty) after
June 30, 1985. To be eligible, servicemembers must have elected to
participate in the program and made monthly contributions from their
military pay. These contributions are not refundable. Eligibility is
also subject to an honorable discharge. Discharges characterized as
``under honorable conditions'' or ``general'' do not qualify.''
This section allows the refund of GI Bill contributions if
the Secretary of Defense determines that the discharge, under honorable
or general conditions, was due to minor infractions or deficiencies.
The American Legion has no official position on this provision;
however, The American Legion opposes requirement to ``contribute''
$1,200 to participate in an earned benefit--the Montgomery GI Bill
contribution.
Section 703: Study by the GAO on whether there is a need
for providing assisted living to veterans.
Background from the IB: ``Assisted living can be a viable
alternative to nursing home care for many of America's aging veterans
who require assistance with the activities of daily living (ADLs) or
the instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). Assisted living
offers a combination of individualized services, which may include
meals, personal assistance, and recreation provided in a homelike
setting. While assisted living is not currently a benefit that is
available to veterans, even though some veterans have eligibility for
nursing home care, the authors of The Independent Budget believe
Congress should consider providing an assisted living benefit to
veterans as an alternative to nursing home care.''
This section directs the GAO to study the provision of
assisted living and produce a report, including sections looking at
possibilities of cost savings for the VA by providing assisted living.
The American Legion supports this provision.
Draft Legislation, ``Veterans Mental Health Care Advocacy Act of
2007'' (formerly the ``Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Mental Health and
Advocacy Act of 2007'').
Section 3 of the legislation, ``Pilot Program on provision of Legal
Assistance to Assist Members of the Armed Forces Receive Health Care,
Benefits and Services From Department of Veterans Affairs and
Department of Defense,'' is well intentioned. However, this provision
appears to overlook the fact that these types of services are already
provided by Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) and State Departments
of Veterans Affairs free of charge, thus making the pilot program
addressed in this legislation unnecessary. The American Legion
recommends a change of focus in this section to look at how the current
support structure (VSOs, states, etc.) is currently being utilized in
order to see where any improvements can be made.
conclusion
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing The American Legion to
present comments on these important measures. As always, The American
Legion welcomes the opportunity to work closely with you and your
colleagues on enactment of legislation in the best interest of
America's veterans and their families.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Akaka to Alec
S. Petkoff, Assistant Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation
Commission, The American Legion
Question. What are the top five legislative priorities of the
Disabled American Veterans?
Response. The top five legislative priorities of the American
Legion are:
Mandatory funding for VA medical care;
Improved timeliness and accuracy of VA disabilities claims
processing;
Timely implementation of CARES construction;
Improved mental health care; and
Improved Long Term Care.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much for all of your
statements. We will now have questions and we will be asking
questions in this order: Senator Webb, Senator Sanders, and
Senator Brown, after I ask my questions.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Akaka. Also, I just want to report that the 11:30
votes have been postponed to 10 of 12, so we have a little more
time here.
Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Petkoff, please elaborate on your
organization's basis for recommending dropping the 10-year
restriction on eligibility for the new insurance program that
would be created by the Disabled Veterans Insurance Improvement
Act of 2007. Mr. Lawrence?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. For veterans that were diagnosed
with latent onset diseases, that might preclude them from
acquiring the benefit when they would be entitled to all other
service-connected benefits. But that 10-year restriction,
somebody that was diagnosed with cancer related to Agent
Orange, they are more than 10 years beyond their service, would
be precluded from service connection. So we would just want to
ensure that no unintended consequences would bar such veterans
from benefiting from it.
Chairman Akaka. Mr. Petkoff?
Mr. Petkoff. I am sorry, Chairman. Which bill number was
this, please?
Chairman Akaka. Mr. Petkoff, the question was I asked for
elaboration of your organization's basis for recommendation
dropping the 10-year restriction on eligibility for the new
insurance program that would be created by the Disabled
Veterans Insurance Improvement Act of 2007.
Mr. Petkoff. Well, I think, sir, some of that information
is covered in the testimony submitted for the record. If you
don't mind----
Chairman Akaka. That is fine. We will look forward to that.
Mr. Hollingsworth, in your written testimony, AMVETS
endorsed the findings and recommendations of the study of
improvements to veterans cemeteries. Does that mean that AMVETS
opposes legislative efforts such as S. 168 to prioritize
building VA cemeteries in specific locations?
Mr. Hollingsworth. Mr. Chairman, AMVETS does not
necessarily oppose or support that provision. I think as I
stated in the testimony, we believe the study served as a very
good planning tool for VA and overall we support VA in their
efforts and their recommendations.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Hilleman, in your written testimony, you expressed
VFW's concern that expanding the accelerated payment program
could lead to squandering education benefits on less-than-
reputable businesses. Will you please elaborate on this concern
and describe VFW's experience with such programs?
Mr. Hilleman. Thank you for the question, Senator. There
are two bills that would basically open up lump-sum GI Bill
payments to larger industries. Currently, it is only allowed
for the high-tech industry. One of the most famous is trucking.
I will use an anecdotal example to illustrate our point, if I
may.
In advertising to veterans for schools of learning or
opportunities that foster a career, if a trucking institution
advertises a career to young veterans leaving the service and
promises a great over-the-road trucking career but only trains
those individuals on automatic transmissions, it is going to
exclude a large portion of the trucking industry to them. It
essentially comes down to truth in advertising, and expanding
the benefit so broadly begs the question of what kind of
regulation and oversight will be afforded to these new schools
of instruction.
So we would caution that with expanding the benefit, you
are opening the door for organizations that will be very
reputable as well as organizations that will take advantage. A
large expansion of this kind of benefit will make VA's
immediate oversight of the program very difficult.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much.
I have another question that I will keep for the second
round, if we have time for that. Senator Webb?
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I
would like to indicate that Senator Brown just agreed to
cosponsor S. 22, so we now have Senator Tester, myself, Senator
Brown, Senator Sanders, and I am hoping maybe I could entice
you in this supportive environment to consider putting yourself
on the bill at some time.
I would like to say to all the panelists, I appreciate your
testimony and the work that you were doing. Having spent a good
part of my life working on veterans areas, it is a labor of
love, as all of you know. You are trying to give something
back.
Mr. Hilleman, I thought your comments about the package
that you put together in order to get through school after the
Marine Corps were very telling. On the one hand, I deeply
respect all the energy you had to put into that, and on the
other, I feel like you earned your scholarship. You earned your
scholarship with 4 years of active duty at a time when this
country is in a great deal of danger and that is what this bill
is all about.
I appreciate the comments of all the witnesses here about
the importance of this legislation, and as Colonel Norton
pointed out, the necessity right now to embrace the service of
people in the Guard and Reserve and those who have stepped
forward in Federal service to get the kind of, not only the
kind of reward for service, but the assistance in transitioning
into their regular civilian life afterward.
I was visited yesterday by an active duty Marine Corps
General, General Leonard, a Major General who wanted to come by
and thank me for this bill. And on the one hand, we hear
rumblings from DOD of the sort of thing that was mentioned in
the Department's testimony about the fact this might affect
retention, and yet on the other hand, I was hearing from
General Leonard--I know he wasn't speaking for the Marine
Corps, I don't want to get him in trouble here--but he was
saying pretty strongly the same sort of thing that, Mr.
Hilleman, you were saying, that there were people he knew that
if they were able to have this kind of strong assistance would
actually come back in, serve a period as an enlisted Marine or
whatever service, and then come back in as an officer. He
thought this was a recruitment program and potentially a
recoupment sort of a retention program. So that is really what
we are up to.
I want to, just for the record here, is there any
organization that is opposed to S. 22?
[No response.]
Senator Webb. I didn't think there was. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you, Senator Webb.
Now we will have Senator Sanders, followed by Senator
Brown.
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
mostly I want to thank all of the organizations that are here
today. You are doing a great job in representing the needs of
the veterans. I think that this here, if we keep the pressure
up, we can take a giant step forward. I think the climate is
right. I think the American people want us to move forward, and
working together, I think we can do just that.
Let me just ask, if I might, your views on several
provisions that are included in the Comprehensive Veterans
Benefits Improvement Act of 2007. I want to thank many of the
organizations for working with us, and this is essentially
legislation that puts into legislative language the provisions
in the Independent Budget. We thank you for putting the budget
together and working with us on this
legislation.
Is there anyone up here, following Senator Webb's approach,
who would oppose eliminating the rounding-down of the benefits
that veterans receive? You all are familiar with that process?
Does it make good sense that we eliminate that provision and we
do not nickel-and-dime veterans? Is anyone not in agreement on
that?
[No response.]
Senator Sanders. For the record, I would note that there
seems to be unanimity of support for that.
In our legislation, we have a provision that increases plot
allowances from $300 to $745. Is anybody not supportive of that
effort? Do people think that makes sense?
[No response.]
Senator Sanders. OK, good. Thank you. We also increased
burial benefits for the non-service-connected veteran from $300
to $1,270 and $2,000 to $4,100 for those who died of service-
connected illnesses. Does anyone want to comment on that? Does
that make sense, that we increase that? Are you hearing much
thought about the kinds of fees available now, payments
available for burial or for funerals? Is that something,
increasing that, that makes sense to people? Yes, Mr.
Hollingsworth?
Mr. Hollingsworth. Senator, if I may, I know AMVETS, along
with the Independent Budget partners, I believe we have already
drafted a letter of support for your bill. If you haven't
received it, then it is forthcoming.
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much. And lastly, it seems
to me, and there are many, many provisions of the bill,
obviously, I just wanted to touch on a few--let me say a few
words. We are addressing the problem, and I know some of you
have already discussed this, of a veteran coming home paralyzed
or not having the ability to drive a car, a normal, regular
car, or access a regular home, and improving the benefits so
that our veterans can enjoy a home and be able to drive a car.
Is that an issue that you are hearing much about, and
increasing benefits so that we can address that? Mr.
Hollingsworth?
Mr. Hollingsworth. I am not aware of veterans with that
particular issue, and I can't speak for the other VSOs.
Senator Sanders. Any thoughts on that? Ms. Beck?
Ms. Beck. Yes, sir. We are aware of a number of veterans
who could greatly benefit from the ability to be able to have
those benefits available to them, and that actually gets to our
point of having the overlap of services and benefits, because
having the active duty and the veterans while they are
recovering from their injuries being able to benefit from those
types of offerings from the VA and DOD can relieve a lot of the
confusion among families that they currently feel about having
someone sitting next to them who is eligible for a benefit and
they aren't eligible for the same benefit and they have the
same wound.
Mr. Hollingsworth. Senator, if I may, I will share with the
Committee, because AMVETS internally, we had quite a debate
internally with regards to extending benefits to active duty
personnel. I think at the end of the day, we want to take care
of the veteran and do the right thing. However, one of our
concerns internally was we believe that having VA pick up the
cost in some respects for folks still serving on active duty
could actually serve as an impediment to the seamless
transition process, and if DOD is held accountable for some of
the costs that they must incur for some of these wounded and
injured service personnel, we believe that, ultimately, it
could serve as a financial incentive to expedite that seamless
process, get them off the Department of Defense rolls and get
them into the VA system.
Senator Sanders. My understanding is that doesn't apply to
our legislation.
Let me just conclude by saying this. We have under Chairman
Akaka and I think many Members of this Committee and very good
support in this House, we have the opportunity to take a giant
step forward. Now, one of the issues that will no doubt come
down the pike--I was in the House for 16 years and I will tell
you exactly what will happen--you will find Members saying,
hey, every idea that you have brought forward is a great idea,
and let me tell you, I support every idea that you have brought
forward. But you know what? We just can't afford it. We just
can't afford it. That will be the argument that you are going
to be hearing in a few months.
And I hope very much, and I don't mean to be political
here, I sincerely do not, but I hope very much you will stand
up and say, let us get our priorities right and before we do
things like give tax breaks to billionaires, we take care of
our veterans. I don't want to get you in trouble or get you
into areas that you are not usually into, but in my view, this
country has the resources to take care of our veterans. It is a
moral obligation. It is a cost of war. If we are sending
somebody abroad, we all know that the wounds of war last for a
lifetime. And if we are going to send somebody abroad, we have
got to take the responsibility of making that person as whole
as we possibly can.
So as we move down the pike, and you are going to hear
people say, oh, every one of your ideas is great. We love
everything you are doing. We just don't have the money. I hope
you will stand with those of us who say, let us get our
priorities right, OK?
All right. Thank you very much for all that you are doing.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator
Sanders.
Senator Brown?
STATEMENT OF HON. SHERROD BROWN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, thank you, Colonel Norton, for your comments.
Sorry I missed. I had an agriculture hearing at the same time.
Sorry I missed some of the earlier comments. But thank you for
your comments about the Guard and Reserve. A lot of us here
believe that we need to do way better than we have done. I am
including many of us have proposed having someone from the
Guard or Reserve have a seat at the table on the Joint Chiefs.
I think that is particularly important.
I want to just give you all an opportunity, if you choose,
to respond to a concern I thought that was brought up earlier.
Senator Obama mentioned, before I got here, about the payments
or the bonuses that were handed out--almost $4 million in
bonuses to senior officials. Under Secretary Cooper defended
those bonuses. I think most of you were in the room and
listened to that testimony. I apologize. As I said, I was not
in the room at that point.
But apparently, the $16,000 average bonus throughout the VA
was higher than any other place in the Federal Government. I
mean, maybe it is not a lot of money. It is $4 million. It is
nothing compared to what Senator Sanders is talking about, the
tax cuts that have gone overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people
in this country, frankly, at the expense of schools, the
expense of health care, and the expense of veterans.
But do any of you have any comments on that? Does that
disturb you? Do you hear about it from some of your members at
the AMVETS or the Legion or the Paralyzed Vets, how important
that is? Does anybody want to comment on that?
Mr. Hollingsworth?
Mr. Hollingsworth. Well, I guess I will be the bold one
here. I think overall, clearly, VA needs some tools to retain
quality professionals and personnel. With a lot of the
specifics of the bonuses, I am not necessarily familiar with
and it hasn't come to our attention on some of the specifics,
but by and large, I will tell you that many of these issues, to
include the issues of bonuses, have been around for years and
they span multiple administrations and multiple Congresses. If
there is some wrongdoing there or some folks who shouldn't have
received bonuses, then clearly, I encourage this Committee to
continue to investigate and look at those on a case-by-case
basis.
Senator Brown. Anybody else?
Mr. Blake. Senator, I would just say that, certainly, we
have heard about it from a number of folks that are in our
membership around the country about it and their concerns. If
you know a little bit about the situation, we probably know
even less as far as who got bonuses for what and those sorts of
things. So we certainly encourage the Committee to investigate
this further.
I think, if anything, this only highlights our concern that
we have raised time and again about the need for proper
accountability in the Department of Veterans Affairs and VBA
and VHA across the board. This may serve as an opportunity to
go down that road more fully in addressing accountability
within the VA.
Senator Brown. Thank you. My concern is that, one, it is
more than any other agency; and second, that there have been
some serious problems in the VA, as the newspapers and others
have pointed out in the last few months. I don't know that our
government is fully rewarding people quite the way that it
should.
Do you want to make one more comment?
Mr. Hollingsworth. Senator, I will. There are some problems
within VA, but you know what? There are some good stories
within the VA, as well. All too often, I think the media tends
to highlight the negative things, and I will tell you, VA does
wonderful things.
Senator Brown. And I think VA health care is the best.
Thank you.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Brown.
I have a request to make of all of you at the table.
As you know, we are operating under pay-go rules so that
any legislation that adds costs must be offset in some fashion,
and you have heard Senator Sanders with a possible kind of an
offset, because of the huge costs that we are looking at. As a
consequence, one of the biggest hurdles to implementation of
many of the bills on the agenda will be costs. For the record,
and this is what I am asking each of you, for the record,
please submit to the Committee your organization's top five
legislative priorities, keeping in mind the cost constraints,
of course. It would be most helpful if you can provide a
response within 7 days. We will be looking toward moving on
some of the bills that members have offered, and so we would
like to have that.
Again, I want to thank all of you, all of our witnesses for
appearing today. We truly appreciate your taking the time to
give us your views on the legislation on the agenda today and
we do appreciate that.
Ms. Beck. Senator, if I could, just one quick remark about
that comment you just made. In many cases that we hear from our
wounded warriors, our youngest generation, they are very
technologically savvy. It is not necessarily in all of the
cases that they need new benefits. They need to have the
benefits that are there more accessible and untangled so that
they can understand and access them. So in some cases--I am not
going to say we don't want new benefits, but in some cases, it
really is just a question of being able to understand what is
already available.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you. Are there any other comments?
[No response.]
Chairman Akaka. Otherwise, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles A. Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service, Department of Labor
Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Craig, and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting us to submit for the record the views of the
Department of Labor on S. 1215, a bill ``[t]o amend title 38, United
States Code, to extend and improve certain authorities of the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.'' Per the Committee's
request, my statement focuses on the residency requirement for State
Directors of Veterans' Employment and Training (DVET) and the
requirement for a special study on veterans' unemployment.
Current law requires that, ``Each Director for Veterans' Employment
and Training for a State shall, at the time of appointment, have been a
bona fide resident of the State for at least 2 years.'' 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 4103(a)(2). Section 3 of S. 1215 titled, ``Waiver of Residency
Requirement for Directors for Veterans' Employment and Training,''
would grant the Secretary of Labor authority to waive this 2-year
residency requirement for appointment of Directors for Veterans'
Employment and Training in the states. Section 3 would provide the
Secretary discretion in appointing qualified individuals to these
positions.
The Department supports Section 3 because the current durational
residency requirement runs counter to merit principles and should not,
in and of itself, be a condition for employment. In the global economy
of the 21st century, our goal is to provide the best possible
employment services to our men and women that serve in the Armed
Forces. Enactment of Section 3 would help ensure that the best
qualified individuals from any state are allowed to apply for and fill
a Director vacancy. It is our belief that choosing from a greater pool
of talent would lead to better management at the state level and better
services provided to veterans and servicemembers.
Section 4 of S. 1215, titled ``Modification of Special Unemployment
Study to Cover Veterans of Global War on Terror,'' would modify the
biennial special unemployment study conducted by the Department of
Labor through the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Current law
requires this special unemployment study be undertaken, and further
mandates that the study include the following categories of veterans:
(A) Special disabled veterans;
(B) Veterans of the Vietnam era who served in the Vietnam theater
of operations during the Vietnam era;
(C) Veterans who served on active duty during the Vietnam era who
did not serve in the Vietnam theater of operations;
(D) Veterans who served on active duty after the Vietnam era; and
(E) Veterans discharged or released from active duty within 4 years
of the applicable study.
See 38 U.S.C. Sec. 4110A(a)(1). In addition, within each of the
categories of veterans specified above, the study must include a
separate category for veterans who are women. See 38 U.S.C.
4110A(a)(2).
Section 4 would update the categories of veterans that receive
particular focus in this biennial special unemployment study.
Currently, two of the five categories of veterans identified for
special focus are categories of Vietnam era veterans. Section 4 would
change those categories to Global War on Terror (GWOT) era veterans.
BLS collects data on total Vietnam era veterans, GWOT era veterans,
and veterans of other conflict eras through both the monthly Current
Population Survey (CPS) and the biennial veterans' supplement to the
CPS. The data necessary to satisfy the more detailed requirements of
the current 38 U.S.C. Sec. 4110A are collected through the biennial
veterans' supplement. It is important to note that BLS will continue to
collect data on veterans by service era through the monthly CPS.
Enactment of S. 1215 would result in the biennial veterans' supplement
to the CPS shifting its more detailed focus from specific categories of
Vietnam-era veterans to veterans of the GWOT.
We support this change, although the Department would like to work
with the Congress on the specific language of Section 4 to ensure that
the biennial study 2 satisfies Congressional intent and provides
information relevant to veterans of 21st century military service. One
area that the Department believes is very important is the ability to
identify veterans who were activated from the National Guard or Reserve
Component. We would like to caution that the CPS is a sample survey of
households, and questions about an individual are often answered by
another household member. In addition, the CPS does not collect
detailed information on military service, such as involvement in
specific military campaigns such as Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom; rather, the CPS provides a comprehensive
body of data on the labor force, employment, unemployment, and persons
not in the labor force.
The objective of the biennial study is to assess the labor market
experiences of veterans. For example, the biennial veterans' supplement
includes a series of questions on servicemembers' use and perceptions
of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) employment workshops, which
are conducted by the Department's Veterans' Employment and Training
Service. Those questions are administered to veteran respondents who
have separated from the military since 1991. Most Vietnam era veterans
are between the ages of 55-64, and likely separated from the armed
services some time ago. Therefore, while BLS will continue to collect
data on total Vietnam era veterans under the monthly CPS, it is
appropriate to shift the more intense focus of the study that results
from the biennial veterans' supplement to the CPS to veterans of the
later GWOT.
On S. 117, the ``Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits
Improvement Act of 2007,'' a bill to require reports on the effects of
the Global War on Terrorism, the Department objects to Section 204,
which would require quarterly reports from the Department of Labor. The
provision is vague as to the scope and implications of covered
information that the Department would be required to provide. In
addition, the section could possibly require extensive reprogramming of
the reporting systems within the Department.
The Department defers to the Department of Veterans Affairs on the
other provisions of S. 1215 and S. 117, as well as the other bills
under consideration at this hearing.
Thank you for allowing me to present the views of the Department on
this important legislation.
__________
Prepared Statement of Donald Sweeney, Legislative Director,
National Association of State Approving Agencies
Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Craig and Members of the Senate
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased to offer the following
comments on behalf of the National Association of State Approving
Agencies on Senate Bills 1215 and 1290 and ``The Post-9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Act of 2007.'' We are very thankful to you for
introducing S. 1215 and look forward to working with you to ensure that
the bill is enacted into law.
s. 1215
We support the provisions of S. 1215, and are especially concerned
with Sections 1 and 5 of the bill. Maintaining the current funding of
State Approving Agencies (SAAs) at $19 million is vital to the success
of the GI Bills. As stated recently by a former Congressional
Subcommittee Staff Director, ``SAAs are the face of the GI Bill at the
state level''. As State entities acting on behalf of the Federal
Government, they have been an outstanding example of the workability of
the Federal-State partnership, allowing Federal interests to be pursued
at the local level while preserving the identity, interests and
sovereignty of State's rights in education. SAAs contribute to the
success of the GI Bills in many ways which include, but are not limited
to, the following:
Determinations regarding the quality and integrity of just
about any kind of learning experience imaginable (institutional, job
training, flight, correspondence, etc.);
Work with employers to develop and enroll veterans in job
training programs;
Assessments of tests for professional and occupational
licensing and certification;
Training of VA Certifying Officials at educational
institutions and job training establishments;
Briefings during transition assistance programs and
retirement seminars, mailings to recently discharged veterans and
Selected Reserve personnel, and other outreach activities to increase
the utilization of the GI Bills;
Providing advice and guidance directly to veterans and
other GI Bill eligible persons and indirectly through educators,
trainers and others who counsel veterans;
Serving as the gatekeepers for the ``GI Bill'' and
advocates for veterans at the state and local levels;
Assisting the Federal Government to eliminate waste, fraud
and abuse; and,
Providing local insights to the Congress and the VA on
revisions to law that would better help to meet the education and
training needs of veterans.
Maintaining funding at the current Fiscal Year 2007 level is
commensurate with the responsibilities of SAAs and the contributions
they make to the success of the GI Bills. The approach utilized by SAAs
is based on the philosophy that the GI Bill should be the premier
educational assistance program in the Nation, bar none. We firmly
believe that our Nation's veterans deserve no less.
Section 1 also retains the funding of SAAs in the Readjustment
Benefits account of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The initial
decision to fund SAAs from this account was made in 1988 (P.L. 100-323)
because of the instability that had existed in the funding of these
agencies since their origin in 1946. SAAs/States need funding stability
in order to plan for and execute activities that meet the requirements
of law and the contract between the State and the VA in an effective
and efficient manner. Many SAAs are comprised of one full time
professional staff person--some have only a part time person. Program
approval and monitoring activities, especially those associated with
new institutional and job training programs, require expertise and
timely action. Unstable and/or late funding does little to support
this.
Although not directly addressed in S. 1215, we would like to
request action on this bill as soon as possible to ensure that the
services currently provided by State Approving Agencies are not
disrupted on October 1, 2007.
Section 5 of S. 1215 extends the current rates of payment for
veterans who are enrolled in an apprenticeship or other on-the-job
training program. We believe that this provision is a good investment
in America because it will allow more veterans who cannot or choose not
to enroll in an institutional program to pursue training for an
occupation or profession. This not only helps them and their families,
but also helps our Nation be more competitive in the world economy.
s. 1290
Although containing some language for modernizing Title 38 of the
U.S. Code that we can accept, we disagree with the major changes being
offered and the underlying philosophy for making these changes.
Moreover, the bill undermines the very principles and practices that
have helped veterans to achieve their career goals and make the GI
Bills as successful as they have been. The major revisions to Title 38
that are offered by this bill blatantly disregard the strengths that
states, through State Approving Agencies, bring to the table and the
contributions that they have made over the last 60 years. Our specific
points of disagreement are stated below.
Section 1(b)(2). Revises Section 3672. Removes the phrase
``State Approving Agencies'' and changes the word ``shall'' to ``may''.
These revisions could easily result in the reduction of the successful
efforts that are currently taking place--the VA will have an option to
give less attention to the educational assistance programs. We believe
that our Nation's veterans and other ``GI Bill'' eligible persons
deserve more! Since SAAs have been actively engaged in outreach
activities and promoting the development of apprenticeship and on the
job training programs, the number of active training facilities has
increased over 100 percent in 10 years from 2,086 (in 1997) to 4,891
(in 2006).
Section 1(b)(3). Also revises Section 3672. Changes some
of the approval criteria for correspondence programs from being too
restrictive to too liberal--we have offered moderate language that
would fit the needs of today's veterans and retain safeguards.
Section 1(c). Revises Section 3673. Gives the Federal
Government direct control over state responsibilities that are
constitutionally based, thus losing the important balance between the
authorities of state governments and the Federal Government. We do not
necessarily disagree with the apparent intent of the revision and look
forward to continuing our work with the VA to ``reduce overlap and
improve efficiency''. What has and continues to work well is a
cooperative arrangement/partnership as currently defined by Section
3673. State Approving Agency personnel have the expertise and first
hand knowledge of the education and training systems in their
respective states as well as established, professional rapport with
educational officials and employers. The current language in Section
3673 and other sections of Chapter 36 is more than sufficient to
maintain effectiveness and efficiency in the veterans' education
program.
Section 1(d). Revises Section 3674. The suggested
revisions (1) delegate state constitutional responsibilities to the
Federal Government, (2) create instability in funding State Approving
Agencies which will have a negative impact on states providing
effective and efficient assistance with the administration of the GI
Bills, and (3) fail to recognize the adequacy of current law and the
expertise and services currently provided by SAAs.
Section 1(e). Revises Section 3674A. While we agree that
there is always room for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
SAAs, current law provides a tried and proven effective approach to
accomplishing this task. The partnership that currently exists between
the VA and SAAs is balanced and works exceptionally well. Revising
Section 3674A as suggested in S. 1290 would remove the very expertise
provided by SAA personnel that has helped to make the partnership
strong and effective.
Section 1(f). Revises Sections 3675 and 3676. We agree
with the apparent intent of this section of the bill and believe that
it is important to keep components of approval criteria up to date,
especially with new and emerging trends in education and training. To
this end, we historically have and will continue to make
recommendations to the Congress for the modernization of approval
criteria. However, we disagree with the approach that is described in
this section of the bill. Our disagreement is two-fold. First, with the
categories that are stated and second, with the assumption of the
responsibility by the VA to define these categories and their level of
application in the Federal regulatory process. Sections 3675 and 3676
of Title 38 have proven over time to be very effective in ensuring that
veterans get a quality learning experience and that taxpayers are
protected against waste, fraud and abuse. The components of the
sections have been periodically reviewed and revised with adequate
debate at the Congressional level to ensure that state responsibilities
are not usurped. The suggested replacement categories of approval
criteria were lifted verbatim from the recent GAO report and are not a
good substitute for the current law. They are a mix of primary and
secondary considerations related to planning, implementing and
evaluating institutional programs of education.
the post-9/11 veterans educational assistance act of 2007
We support the provisions of this bill and its underlying principle
of providing the very best to those who defend the freedoms that we all
so thoroughly enjoy. As stated earlier in this testimony, we believe
that the GI Bill should be the premier educational assistance program
in the Nation, bar none. As a founding member of the Partnership for
Veterans' Education, we continue to work with various military,
veterans and higher education organizations for the enactment of a
Total Force GI Bill. The key components of this initiative are the
simplification of the administration of the Montgomery GI Bill and
equity for members of the Selected Reserve--equal program opportunities
and benefits for equal service rendered. Both components are currently
embodied in S. 644, a bill that we recommend be considered by the
Committee.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we again thank you for introducing S.
1215 and look forward to the bill becoming law. Thank you also for this
opportunity to comment on other bills offered for consideration by the
Senate Veterans' Affair Committee. Please let us know if we can provide
further information on any of the statements that we have made in this
testimony or on other matters related to the educational assistance
programs for our Nation's veterans.
the ``veterans justice assurance act''
PVA opposes what we understand would essentially be lifetime
appointments for any newly nominated judge to the Veterans Court as
outlined in Section 2 of this proposed legislation. Recognizing the
concern discussed in recent years about multiple judges retiring at the
same time, we believe 15-year appointments, made on a staggered basis,
adequately addresses this problem.
Furthermore, we believe that the periodic introduction of new
judges of varying backgrounds and perspectives that occurs now through
term limits is a significant value to the development of veteran's law
jurisprudence. The difference between a 15-year term and a lifetime
appointment could conceivably be as much as 35-45 years. This time
difference cuts multiple ways and could adversely affect the
relationships among the judges, the bar and veterans in ways that are
unknown at this time.
Realizing also that there is a perception that newly appointed
judges are ineffective for a significant period of time, partly as a
result of their learning process, and that a lifetime appointment would
result in the Veterans Court being populated with judges who are
effective for longer periods of time, and even assuming that there is
some truth to this perception, there are other ways in which Congress
could address this issue. For example, Congress might take more care to
encourage the nomination of judges who have some prior experience in
Veterans Law. Congress could also ensure that the Court maintain an
experienced and skilled central legal staff that would be in a position
to assist newly appointed judges. Congress also may encourage the Court
to look at creating a more active mentoring process, perhaps using
retired judges for newly appointed judges--a practice that is used
successfully in other Courts.
Ultimately, PVA believes that changing the term of a Veterans Court
judge from a term of 15 years to a lifetime appointment is a
significant departure from the current practice with many unknown
consequences. This is not a direction that should be taken without a
thorough understanding of what the change is intended to accomplish and
without trying other less drastic alternatives.
PVA would also like to suggest a couple of changes to language
included in the legislation. In Section 4, we would like to see the
following language added: (d)(5)(B) ``and other recognized bar
associations.'' We would also like to see a new section ``(E) The
Veterans Pro Bono Consortium Program.'' These organizations would have
valuable input and should not be excluded from the current list of
organizations the chief judge might consult with. In Section 6, we
would like to see the following language added: ``(9) The number of
appeals taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, to
include the number of appeals taken by the Secretary.''
PVA also has some concerns about the study proposed in Section 7 of
the legislation. The study should also include the impact, if any, on
PVA, (an entity that works with the Court and which currently leases
space in the same commercial facility in which the Court is located) of
establishing a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center in the
existing commercial facility. Currently, PVA leases space in the same
commercial facility in which the Court is located. The study should
consider whether additional provision should be required to ensure that
PVA is not disadvantaged in any way vis-a-vis other entities that work
with the Court and are not currently located in the same commercial
facility as the Court.
draft bill, the veterans' justice assurance act of 2007
VFW also supports draft legislation entitled the Veterans' Justice
Assurance Act of 2007. The current backlog of claims at the Board of
Veterans' Appeals continues to grow at alarming rates. VFW applauds the
provisions of this bill which, if enacted, will provide some relief to
a burdened veterans' court system. Some of the bill's highlights
include repealing term limits and allowing judges who have pending
nominations before the Senate to serve in office while the process
plays out. These necessary changes, as well as recalling retired judges
at equal pay to current judges, will all contribute positively to the
current situation and help to move some veteran's appeals forward.
[amvets--nothing]
the veterans' justice assurance act of 2007
This draft bill would repeal term limits for judges of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims, and it would increase the
salary amount for the chief judge of the Court. The bill would
establish provisions to recall retired judges of the Court, and it
would grant the Court discretion to set reasonable practice and
registration fees. It would require the Court to submit an annual
report to Congress that summarizes the Court's workload during the
previous fiscal year. Last, the bill would produce a report on the
feasibility of establishing a Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center.
With regard to the repeal of term limits for judges of the Court,
the DAV does not believe that appointing judges to longer terms is
desirable. Appointments to extended terms during good behavior are
generally reserved for judges of Article III courts. Since judges of
the Court may be removed by the President by reason of misconduct, 38
U.S.C. Sec. 7253(f), there is no doubt that the Court is part of the
executive branch. The proposed departure from the present fifteen-year
term might raise a question about the status of the Court because there
seems to be no precedent for life tenure within the executive branch.
The DAV has no objection to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims receiving a higher rate of compensation than the other
judges of the Court. Regarding the recall of retired judges, the DAV
notes that the proposed provisions for doing so are somewhat complex
and may raise issues for judges who have retired far from Washington,
DC. The Committee might want to consider simpler staffing solutions,
such as increasing the number of judges authorized for the Court. The
DAV believes that the proposed annual report to Congress from the Court
should be more specific and include, along with the number and type of
dispositions, the number of dispositions based on settlements, joint
motions for remand, voluntary dismissals, and the number of memorandum
decisions made by each judge. The DAV supports the establishment of a
dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center. During the most
recent DAV National Convention, our members voted to again adopt a long
standing resolution calling for such a facility. Our resolution
envisions an architectural design and location that is reflective of
the United States' respect and gratitude for veterans of military
service. Rather than designating the office building where the Court
currently leases space as the permanent facility, we encourage the
Committee to authorize the construction of a new Veterans Courthouse
and Justice Center that features the design and location worthy of its
status.
draft legislation, ``the veterans justice assurance
act of 2007''
As this legislation was not received in time for us to thoroughly
review, The American Legion defers comment and respectfully requests
the Committee to allow us to submit for the record at a later date.
Finally, WWP would like to support S. 1289, The Veterans' Justice
Assurance Act. This legislation would, among other things, modify the
current authorities affecting the recall of judges retired from The
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The changes
included in this legislation would help to ensure that the Court is
capable of handling its cases in a timely manner, an issue of great
concern for all wounded warriors who wish to challenge their disability
compensation rating from the VA.
__________
United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims,
Washington, DC, May 24, 2007.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
412 Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to formally
provide views on S. 1289, the Veterans' Justice Assurance Act of 2007.
Upon review of the language of the bill and the accompanying floor
statement, it appears that the two main purposes of S. 1289 are to
assist the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in
addressing its increased caseload and to provide for a seamless
transition when the terms of the current judges end and new judges are
confirmed. These are laudable goals; however, the proposed
modifications raise significant issues that need to be considered. I
believe a brief overview of the Court and its status in the Federal
judiciary will help put my comments in perspective.
There are 15 United States Courts of Appeals, including 13 Article
III courts and two designated as Article I courts: ours and the Court
of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Although there is a long history of
controversy over what is an Article I or an Article III court, as a
practical matter, the difference between a designated Article I court
and an Article III court is that all of the Article I courts have a
narrow, specialized jurisdiction, and the judges all sit for specified
terms, after which they may continue to serve part-time or retire.
(With the exception of the Supreme Court, all courts are created by
Congress. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 8, cl. 9.)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has exclusive
jurisdiction over adverse decisions by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
With the exception of two judges appointed for a 13-year term for the
purpose of staggering the dates on which judges would retire, see
Public Law No. 106-117 (November 30, 1999), the judges are appointed
for 15-year terms. At the end of that term, unless retired earlier,
each judge may: (1) agree to reappointment if offered; (2) accept
recall-eligible status which permits the judge to be recalled
involuntarily by the Chief Judge for up to 90 days each year and up to
180 days if agreeable; or (3) fully retire. In contrast, an Article III
court generally has both criminal and civil jurisdiction, or at least a
broader jurisdiction than the currently designated Article I courts,
and the judges all serve during good behavior or, otherwise stated, for
life. These judges may retire based upon the rule of 80, or they may
elect senior status during which they receive pay of the office if they
undertake 25 percent or more of the workload of an active judge
(equivalent to the 90-day recall period for judges of our Court). Like
these senior judges, our current recall-eligible-retired judges receive
pay of the office.
Turning to the proposed bill, section 2(a) would provide for
appointment of judges to the Court to hold office during good behavior,
as opposed to term appointment. I take no position on whether the Court
should be designated as an Article I court or not, but only note that
this change in tenure likely may impact such designation. Additionally,
this change in tenure may be incompatible with 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7253(f),
which permits removal by means other than impeachment. Section 2(a)
also would grandfather the term appointments of the currently sitting
judges by specifically providing for 15-year terms; however, it fails
to consider that two of these judges only have 13-year appointments.
Section 3 would provide for an increase in the Chief Judge's
salary; however, such change would be wholly inconsistent with the
other Federal courts, appellate or district, as only the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court is provided a differential salary for serving as
the head of a Federal court. Nevertheless, the Court has matured over
the past 18 years since its creation and Associate Professor Michael
Allen of the Stetson University College of Law, when commenting on
proposed changes to the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
observed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is one of
the busiest Federal appellate courts, nationwide. Professor Allen
points out that, in 2006, with 3,729 new cases, the Court's incoming
caseload was greater than the First (with 1,852 cases), Seventh
(3,634), Eighth (3,312), Tenth (2,742), District of Columbia (1,281),
and Federal (1,772) Circuits. With only seven active judges, the
Court's case-per-judge average is 533, about twice as many cases as the
263 average per judge for the Article III circuit courts of appeal.
Accordingly, I am prompted by the proposed section 3 amendment to
strongly urge the Committee to consider equating our pay to that of all
of the other Federal appellate judges.
The amendments described in section 4 appear to be directed at
helping the Court deal with the increase in its caseload by providing
judges an incentive to serve longer periods of recall. But, with the
exception of one section that provides that a judge can no longer be
involuntarily recalled after he or she has provided 5 years of recall
service, all of these provisions necessarily are applicable only to
newly appointed judges. There is only one vacancy expected within the
next 10 years. Accordingly, absent an imminent increase in number of
active judges, it will be many years before any of the proposed changes
in section 4 have any real impact.
Moreover, although newly appointed judges would be appointed for
life, they could fully retire or change their status to recall eligible
upon satisfying the rule of 80. Section 4 would provide that, if the
judge retired fully, his or her pay would essentially freeze at the pay
when retired. If the judge takes recall-eligible status, his or her pay
would be the pay of the office during periods of recall, but when not
actually recalled, the pay would be what he or she was receiving at the
time of retirement. Although this provision is intended to encourage a
judge to retire into recall-eligible status, it actually might have the
effect of delaying retirements which would then deprive the court of a
pool of experienced recall-eligible judges ready to address caseload
spikes. Judges might decline to retire or accept recall status rather
than take the risk that they would not be recalled or recalled only for
a portion of a year, after which pay would revert back to the pay at
the time of retirement. Section 4 also would provide that, once a judge
has served in the aggregate of at least 5 years in recall status, he or
she could no longer be recalled. The proposed statutory language,
however, does not appear to specifically preserve pay of the office.
Regarding section 4, I note that continued pay of the office for
recall-eligible judges is consistent with continued pay of the office
for senior judges of the Article III courts. I believe this parity
should remain. One change that might be considered, particularly given
our heavy caseload and the prospect that it will continue, is changing
the recall-eligible status for future judges to a senior judge status
similar to that for Article III judges. Under this change, a judge
could fully retire at pay at time of retirement or elect to enter
senior status with pay of the office during which he or she performs 25
percent or more of the work of an active judge. This would encourage
judges who are ready to take less than a full caseload to stay in the
system.
Section 4(d) would require the Chief Judge to establish guidelines
for recalling a judge. I perceive no need for this requirement as I am
exercising my authority to recall our available judges at this time
and, given our caseload, will do so for the foreseeable future. Seeing
no need, I am concerned that this provision can be perceived as
interfering with the independence of the Court, particularly given the
requirement to consult with the litigants before the Court. Although I
support consideration of a senior-judge status that takes the Chief
Judge out of the recall business, should recall remain tied to a
determination of need, I believe it is best to leave that determination
to the Chief Judge, who must be presumed to fulfill his duties in a
responsible manner.
The interest in the Court's increased caseload expressed through
this proposed legislation is appreciated. However, the proposed bill
does not consider all potential ways to address this challenge. Thus,
one question that might be asked is whether, considering the increased
and increasing caseload, there should be an immediate increase in the
number of active judges on this Court. Another question that might be
asked is whether there is a continuing need for serial appellate review
by our Court and then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. We now have a settled body of specialized jurisprudence that
was lacking when this independent judicial appellate review was
established in 1988. It may be time to consider the structural
usefulness of continued Federal Circuit review of this Court's
decisions and opinions.
The Court supports fully the provisions in the bill increasing
admission fees and directing certain actions toward the proposed U.S.
Courthouse and Veterans Justice Center. Your support in these endeavors
is very much appreciated.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed
bill.
Sincerely,
William P. Greene, Jr.,
Chief Judge.
cc: The Honorable Larry E. Craig, Ranking Member.
__________
Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick LLP,
Providence, RI, May 30, 2007.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman, Senate Veterans Affairs' Committee,
Room 412 Russell Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Akaka: I am writing to you on behalf of the National
Organization of Veterans' Advocates (``NOVA'') in response to your
letter dated May 17, 2007 regarding our views on S. 1289, ``the
Veterans Justice Assurance Act of 2007.''
In 2005, when the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (``CAVC'')
case load increased by one third, the Court had to confront this
challenge with new judges as all but one of the original appointees of
the Court had recently retired. S. 1289 seeks to address these and
other concerns by eliminating the 15 year term limits that judges
presently serve on the CAVC. In addition, this bill, if enacted, will
eliminate the 180 day time limit a judge could serve in recall status
and provide a financial incentive for a judge to serve in recall status
for a period of five years. NOVA supports these provisions to help the
Court deliver justice to our nation's veterans in a timely manner.
Regarding the specific provisions of the bill, NOVA offers the
following thoughts:
Section 2 of S. 1289 would repeal the 15 year term limits for
future appointees to the CAVC. This change would eliminate the problem
the CAVC confronted beginning in 2003 when the judges, who were
initially appointed to CAVC, all retired within a few years of each
other. While NOVA has not studied any Constitutional questions this may
raise, this seems to be a reasonable measure to avoid the loss of all
the judges every 15 years.
Section 3 of S. 1289 would increase by $7,000.00 the salary of any
judge who is serving as Chief Judge. Given the duties and
responsibilities of the Chief Judge, this seems reasonable to NOVA.
Section 4 of S. 1289 would eliminate the 180 day cap on the period
of time that a retired judge could serve in recall status. More
importantly, this section would provide a fmancial incentive for a
retired judge to serve in recall status by paying the judge the full
rate of pay for a sitting justice. Finally, this bill would permit a
retired judge who served in recall status for a total of five years to
no longer be subject to recall status and receive the same pay as a
sitting judge. The intent behind this section is to provide an
incentive for a retired judge to serve in recall status for a period of
five years.
Section 6 of S. 1289 would require the CAVC to annually report key
data regarding the Court's workload. NOVA supports this and believes
that Congress should additionally require the CAVC to report the median
amount of time it takes from when a case is fully briefed until the
decision is issued.
Finally, section 7 of S. 1289 addresses the fact that the Court
needs more space than it presently has to continue to meet the demands
of its case load. NOVA believes that one option is for the Court to
take over all the space at its present location, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC; and this option should be explored.
NOVA believes that S. 1289 will assist in the more timely
resolution of veterans' appeals, therefore, NOVA fully supports this
bill.
Robert V. Chisholm,
Past President,
National Organization
of Veterans' Advocates.
__________
American Academy of Ophthalmology,
Washington, DC, May 21, 2007.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Akaka: On behalf of the entire American Academy of
Ophthalmology (the Academy), I am writing in support of S. 1163, the
Blinded Veterans Paired Organ Act of 2007.
This important legislation would update eligibility requirement
benefits provided to veterans with a service-connected disability
because of blindness. Many veterans with severe vision impairment are
currently excluded from benefits that could significantly improve the
quality of their lives.
As you know, the bill would modify eligibility requirements for two
separate benefits available to blinded veterans. Currently, both of
these benefits are restricted to a narrow group of veterans who have
sustained the most serious degree of vision impairment. Passage of the
Blinded Veterans Paired Organ Act would extend benefits to all veterans
who meet the standard definition of legal blindness that the Social
Security Administration has used for over 40 years to determine
disability. With so many members of our Armed Forces currently deployed
overseas and in combat situations, this legislation is vital to help
ensure that veterans receive the benefits they deserve.
As the world's largest organization of eye physicians and surgeons
with more than 27,000 members, over 17,000 of which are in active
practice in the United States. we thank you for introducing this
important legislation and for your record of commitment to America's
veterans and the brave men and women who serve in our Armed Forces.
Sincerely,
Michael X. Repka, M.D.,
Secretary of Federal Affairs.