[House Report 106-959]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-959

======================================================================



 
        FOR THE RELIEF OF FRANCIS SCHOCHENMAIER AND MARY HUDSON

                                _______
                                

 October 11, 2000.--Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 785]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (S. 785) for the relief of Francis Schochenmaier and Mary 
Hudson, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                  

                                                                 Page
Purpose and Summary........................................           1
Background and Need for the Legislation....................           1
Committee Consideration....................................           2
Committee Oversight Findings...............................           2
Committee on Government Reform Findings....................           2
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures..................           3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate..................           3
Constitutional Authority Statement.........................           4

                          Purpose and Summary

    S. 785 would provide relief to the widows of two veterans 
whose benefits were erroneously calculated by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    In the case of Frances Schochenmaier, her husband, a war 
hero, suffered an injury during his military service and 
received disability compensation from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA) from 1945 until 1995. The VA reevaluated 
his disability and admitted that it made a clear and 
unmistakable error in compensating him $60,567.58 less than he 
deserved. However, just prior to the VA paying Mr. 
Schochenmaier the amount due him, he passed away. Although 
admitting their error, and acknowledging that recent law 
allowed them some discretion when a ``clear and unmistakable 
error'' had been made in a determination of benefits, they 
determined that Mrs. Schochenmaier could not receive those 
monies because survivors are restricted from receiving more 
than 2 years worth of any awards for accrue benefits under a 
separate part of the statute. The Schochenmaiers were depending 
on those funds when Mr. Schochenmaier died and now Mrs. 
Schochenmaier has been diagnosed with cancer making the need 
for these monies owed to her and her husband even more 
important.
    This bill would allow Mrs. Schochenmaier to receive the 
$60,567.58 owed her husband for his disability.
    In the case of Mary Hudson, her husband filed a claim with 
the VA in 1990 for a service-connected disability for hearing 
loss and nerve damage incurred during World War II. Eight years 
later, the Board of Veterans Appeals entered a favorable 
decision on Mr. Hudson's claim, ruling that Mr. Hudson's 
bilateral hearing loss and residuals of concussion were 
service-connected. On January 12, 2000, the VA mailed a check 
to Mr. Hudson in the amount of $97,253 for retroactive benefits 
relating to his disability. Unfortunately, Mr. Hudson had died 
4 days earlier. The benefits check was deposited by the 
executor of Mr. Hudson's estate, and the monthly prospective 
disability check issued on February 1 in the amount of $937 was 
returned to the VA per their request.
    Subsequently, the VA determined that Mrs. Hudson was not 
eligible to receive the lump sum check for retroactive 
disability benefits as a survivor under the same statute cited 
in the Schochenmaier case and asked that the funds be returned.
    Had the VA not delayed rendering a decision on Mr. Hudson's 
case for 8 years, he and his wife would have received these 
monies long before his death.
    This bill would allow Mrs. Hudson to keep the $97,253 
received by her and owed her husband for his disability.

                        Committee Consideration

    On October 11, 2000, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open session and ordered reported favorably the bill S. 785 
without amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the committee, based 
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

                Committee on Government Reform Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the committee believes that 
the bill would have no significant impact on the Federal 
budget. This is based on the Congressional Budget Office cost 
estimate on S. 785. That Congressional Budget Office cost 
estimate follows:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, October 11, 2000.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 785, an act for the 
relief of Francis Schochenmaier and Mary Hudson.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is John R. 
Righter, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                  Dan L. Crippen, Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers Jr.
        Ranking Democratic Member
S. 785--An act for the relief of Francis Schochenmaier and Mary Hudson.
    S. 785 would require that the Secretary of the Treasury pay 
$60,567.58 to Francis Schochenmaier as compensation for the 
underpayment of disability benefits owed to her husband as a 
result of his military service in World War II. In addition, 
the legislation would prohibit the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs from attempting to recover $97,253 from the estate of 
Wallace Hudson. That recovery relates to disability benefits 
that were provided after Mr. Hudson's death. Because S. 785 
would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
apply.
    On September 26, 2000, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for 
S. 785, a bill for the relief of Francis Schochenmaier and Mary 
Hudson, as reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 
September 21, 2000. The two versions of the legislation are 
identical, as are our cost estimates.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is John R. Righter, 
who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by 
Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(1)(4) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

                                
