[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 50 (Tuesday, April 1, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2287-S2288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     AMERICA'S WOUNDED WARRIORS ACT

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss S. 2674, a bill I 
introduced to improve and modernize the disability system of the 
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs so that it 
meets the needs of both our older generations of veterans and our 
wounded warriors coming home today.
  One of the most sacred trusts we make is the one with our veterans. 
Their sacrifices, and the sacrifices of their families, are inspiring. 
The desire to provide these heroes with the benefits and services they 
need and deserve is certainly something we can all agree on.
  With this sacred trust in mind, I recently introduced legislation to 
ensure veterans have a disability system that we can all be proud of--a 
system that is updated to reflect the modern day, is consistent, is not 
overly bureaucratic, and meets the needs of all generations of 
veterans.
  The challenges facing our newer veterans are apparent. Over the past 
few years, I have met with many young servicemembers, some from my home 
State of North Carolina, who have suffered devastating injuries while 
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost as remarkable as their courage 
and their can-do attitudes, is their outlook about the future.
  These wounded warriors rightfully expect that serious injuries should 
not prevent them from living productive and fulfilling lives. In fact, 
many want nothing less than to return to their units, and with modern 
medicine and technology, many are doing just that.
  But for those who are not able to continue serving, like Ted Wade 
from my home State, they deserve a disability system that meets their 
needs and expectations. We should be giving them--in a quick, hassle 
free, and effective way--the benefits and services they need to return 
to their full and productive lives.
  But, the need for an improved system became very clear last year, 
when news reports detailed how some seriously injured servicemembers at 
Walter Reed endured a lengthy, hard-to-understand, bureaucratic process 
to try to get their disability benefits. This left many injured 
servicemembers and their families frustrated, confused, and 
disappointed. It left our Nation angry and ashamed.
  Let me give you a brief idea of what an injured servicemember may 
have to go through. Consider a young soldier who is injured in Iraq and 
is no longer fit for duty because of his injuries. Before he can be 
discharged from the military, he may go through a lengthy, complex 
process with the Department of Defense to be assigned a disability 
rating between 0 percent and 100 percent.
  If the rating is high enough--30 percent or more--he will get a 
lifetime annuity, health care for his entire family, exchange and 
commissary privileges, and other benefits. If it is below 30 percent, 
he will get only a lump-sum severance payment. But there have been no 
bright-line rules on how these ratings are assigned. Each branch of the 
military has used different procedures, so servicemembers in various 
branches often receive different ratings even for the same injuries.
  After going through that confusing process, the injured soldier may 
then go through a similar bureaucratic process with the Department of 
Veterans Affairs to get a VA rating. That rating will determine not 
only the level of monthly disability compensation he will receive from 
VA, but eligibility for other benefits and services such as vocational 
rehabilitation and priority access to VA health care.
  As if all of that isn't confusing enough, both DOD and VA assign 
those disability ratings based on the same VA rating schedule, but the 
ratings are often different. And, there are complicated rules over how 
much of the benefits from DOD and VA the veteran may receive at the 
same time. If those watching today are as confused by that description 
of the process as I am, imagine what our veterans have to endure.
  On top of all that, the rating schedule used by both VA and DOD to 
determine who gets these critical benefits is completely outdated. This 
schedule was developed in the early 1900s and about 35 percent of it 
has not been updated since 1945.
  The schedule is also riddled with outdated criteria that do not track 
with modern medicine. Take for example traumatic arthritis. The rating 
schedule requires a veteran to show proof of this condition through x-
ray evidence. But doctors today would generally diagnose the condition 
using more modern technology, like an MRI.
  Even worse, experts are telling us the schedule is not adequate for 
rating conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic 
brain injury, which are afflicting so many of our veterans from the war 
on terror. Also, experts have told us that the schedule does not 
adequately compensate young, severely disabled veterans; veterans with 
mental disabilities; and veterans who are unemployable.
  So, it's completely understandable why so many veterans are 
frustrated and confused by this system. The question is:
  How do we fix it?
  To help answer that question, two distinguished commissions issued 
reports last year laying out the problems with the system and giving us 
a road map to a modern, more consistent, and simpler system. One 
commission, the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning 
Wounded Warriors, was chaired by former Senator Bob Dole and former 
Secretary Donna Shalala. The other, the Veterans' Disability Benefits 
Commission, was chaired by General James Terry Scott.
  Here are just a few examples of what these commissions found:

       Despite their disability systems' different intents, 
     processes, and outcomes, DOD and VA use the same outdated 
     rating sched-
     ule . . . . [which] has not been completely revised since 
     1945.
       [T]he policies and procedures used by VA and DOD are not 
     consistent and the resulting dual systems are not in the best 
     interest of the injured servicemember nor the nation.
       The purpose of the current veterans disability compensation 
     program . . . is to compensate for average impairment in 
     earning capacity . . . This is an unduly restrictive 
     rationale for the program and is inconsistent with current 
     models of disability.
       The goal of disability benefits should be rehabilitation 
     and reintegration into civilian life'' but that goal ``is not 
     being met.

  These two commissions strongly recommended that we need to: get rid 
of the overlapping, confusing roles of VA and DOD in the disability 
rating process; completely update the VA disability rating schedule; 
compensate veterans for any loss of quality of life, while also 
compensating them for any loss in their earnings capacity; and place 
more emphasis on the treatment and rehabilitation of injured veterans.
  As the Dole-Shalala Commission cautioned, ``We don't recommend merely 
patching the system, as has been done in the past. Instead, the 
experiences of these young men and women have highlighted the need for 
fundamental changes.''
  What's interesting to note here is that similar changes to the system 
were recommended in 1956 by a commission led by General Omar Bradley. 
Back in the 1950s, the Bradley Commission wrote in its report: ``Our 
philosophy of veterans' benefits must . . . be modernized and the whole 
structure of traditional veterans' programs brought up to date.'' If my 
math is right that was over 50 years ago. Clearly, we are long overdue 
for some improvements.
  I believe the bill I introduced will start us on the right path to 
making this system more straight-forward, consistent, and modern. Let 
me give you an idea of what America's Wounded Warriors Act would do.

[[Page S2288]]

  First, the bill would simplify the DOD process and make it more 
consistent. Any servicemember found unfit for duty--regardless of the 
severity of the disability--would receive a lifetime annuity based on 
rank and years of service and would receive other retirement benefits, 
such as commissary and exchange privileges. Eligibility for TRICARE 
would be determined by Congress or DOD, after further studies on that 
issue.
  These changes would get DOD out of the business of assigning 
disability ratings, ending the duplicative system that now makes 
injured veterans get rated by both DOD and VA. It would also create a 
bright line rule on what benefits a medically discharged servicemember 
would receive. Different branches of the military would no longer 
provide different levels of benefits to servicemembers with the same 
injuries.
  Under my bill, veterans would receive both their entire DOD annuity 
plus any VA disability benefits they are eligible for. This would put 
an end to the confusing practice of offsetting some DOD and VA 
benefits.
  This bill would also help modernize the VA disability system. The 
VA's outdated disability rating schedule would be entirely replaced by 
a new schedule that is based on modern science and medicine. It will 
also take into account the impact that a disability has on both a 
veteran's average loss of earning capacity and loss of quality of life. 
As we now know, quality of life--time spent with family, community and 
nonwork activities--is also affected by disability. Shouldn't our 
disability system reflect the impact service-related disabilities have 
on those important aspects of life, too?
  Also, this bill would provide more emphasis on treatment and 
rehabilitation. Veterans discharged from service because of disability 
would be eligible for transition payments, either during the three 
month period following their separation or during a period of 
rehabilitation. These payments would help cover family living expenses, 
so an injured veteran would be better able to focus on rehabilitation, 
training, and getting back into the workforce. These are commonsense 
options and solutions for today's veterans living in the modern world.
  Lastly, I want all veterans, whether having served in World War II, 
Vietnam, or Afghanistan, to have access to an improved system. My bill 
does not distinguish between combat and non-combat injuries; does not 
leave the outdated rating schedule in place; and does not prevent 
veterans of any generation from choosing to join the new, improved 
system. Also, as recommended by veterans' organizations, my efforts 
were guided by the work of both the Dole-Shalala Commission and the 
Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission.
  How will we actually accomplish the goals of making the system 
simpler, consistent and more modern? Under this bill, the Department of 
Veterans Affairs would conduct a series of studies and would send to 
Congress a proposal outlining a new rating schedule and the amount and 
duration of transition payments. To make sure these recommendations 
don't get put on a shelf to collect dust--as has happened in the past--
the entire VA proposal would be subject to an up-or-down vote by 
Congress.
  If these changes are enacted, it would eliminate the confusion and 
delay now caused by the overlapping VA and DOD functions and put a 
greater emphasis on the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. It 
would update the rating system to take into account modern concepts of 
disability and make sure that veterans are compensated for any loss in 
their quality of life.
  As a final note, I want to acknowledge that reforming the disability 
system may require a large, upfront cost. But, if we do it right, we 
will be making a real investment in the future of our nation's 
veterans. Given the character of the men and women of our Armed Forces, 
this investment will come with little risk and great reward.
  We cannot put this off for another 50 years and hope another 
generation will fix the disability system later. We have young men and 
women returning home from war with devastating injuries that most of us 
could not fathom enduring, let alone at such young ages.
  The sad truth is that, even though the disability system was already 
outdated more than five decades ago, Congress and past administrations 
have not made the necessary changes to keep pace with modern society, a 
changing economy, and new attitudes towards disability. I believe I 
have an idea why: This is really hard stuff. This is a complicated 
system and it is often easier to use band-aids and quick fixes to get 
us through times of crisis. But, the Walter Reed stories showed all of 
us last year that wounded warriors--those injured while fighting in 
Iraq and Afghanistan--are the ones who pay the price for our inaction. 
And every day we continue to wait is another day they continue to pay 
that price. They deserve better.
  We need to listen to the wake-up call that the Walter Reed stories 
sent all of us. We must act now, and that is why I have introduced a 
bill that will update the system to meet the needs and expectations of 
today's veterans and does not leave tomorrow's veterans with a system 
that was already outdated before they were even born. Our veterans 
deserve a system that is more straightforward, up-to-date, and 
consistent and that is open to all.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to remember the ``call to 
action'' we received last year when serious problems were publicly 
exposed at Walter Reed, and I ask them to join me in improving the 
lives of our veterans.

                          ____________________